Sitting of 11 March 1986

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

    Trident
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect of President Reagan's current intermediate nuclear forces proposals on the Trident programme.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): None, Sir.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister realise that the Prime Minister's rejection of the Russian proposal for a ban on intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe is disgraceful? It is a blow to peace. It means that, as usual, the Prime Minster has got it wrong. Will the Minister confirm that the reason for the rejection is to enable the Government to continue their folly of the deployment of Trident in this country?
    When the Prime Minister talks of the goal of a nuclear freeze being long term, she is not speaking for Britain. We cannot afford to wait, because every nuclear weapon that is based in Europe brings the danger of nuclear war ever nearer.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has got it comprehensively wrong. The Government remain committed, as do the American Administration, to a zero-zero solution to the INF problem based on a zero-zero which must be expressed in global terms. The possibility of a zero-zero solution based solely on European long-range INF weapons is certainly not satisfactory. The hon. Member seems to forget that SS20s are highly mobile.
    Sir Anthony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to cancel our involvement with Trident it would have a disastrous effect on the various peace initiatives?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that what was encouraging in the Gorbachev proposals of 15 January was that, for the first time, he was proposing the removal of all Soviet and American intermediate range missiles from Europe, while allowing France and Britain to retain their existing nulear missiles provided that they did not modernise them? Is it not a scandal that the Government have vetoed that proposal by rejecting out of hand the suggestion that we should not go ahead with Trident?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely disagree with the hon. Member. There is no possible basis for making prohibition of the modernisation of British and French systems a pre-condition of an INF agreement when the Soviet Union is taking no steps to make prohibition of the modernisation of its strategic forces a pre-conditon of an INF agreement.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were to be an agreed reduction in intermediate range nuclear forces, the importance of modern and effective strategic deterrents in France and the United Kingdom would be enhanced in the defence of Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wallace: Is not the Prime Minister's wholly negative response to the initiative—the first constructive, far-reaching initiative to come out of the Soviet Union for almost over a generation — profoundly disappointing? It makes the Government's claim to support multilateral disarmament somewhat threadbare. Are we not approaching the situation where the Government's obsession with Trident will make us losers twice over: first, the extent to which Trident will crowd out other new defence equipment expenditure; and, secondly, the possibility of Trident becoming an effective hurdle to proper disarmament talks at Geneva?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a thoroughly positive and constructive response in correspondence with Premier Gorbachev. My right hon. Friend is entirely right to rest on the basic principle, which NATO has followed, of a zero-zero global based INF agreement. If the Soviets want a long-range INF agreement, based on equal numbers of like systems, they most certainly can have it. It is for them to accept that fundamentally fair principle in such negotiations.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Trident programme is merely a modernisation and updating of the Polaris programme, which has contributed handsomely to the peace of the West? If Opposition Members do not recognise that, at least the Leader of the Opposition recognises that Rosyth is important to the Trident programme, because he deliberately leaves out any comment about Trident in letters which are critical of the Government's plans as he knows of Trident's importance to Scottish workers.
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have noticed a certain inconsistency between what the Leader of the Opposition says in the Devonport area and what he says in the Rosyth area. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are modernising the British strategic deterrent. Many of us find it difficult to understand why the Opposition, having set in hand a major modernisation of our existing deterrent, should not be prepared to accept a continuance of that policy with a successor system.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's rejection—for it was that—of a multilateral attempt to freeze the development of nuclear weapons demonstrates the hollowness of the Government's repeated claim that they believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's determination to go ahead with Trident, despite the fact that it will affect arms talks between the United States and

    791
    the Soviet Union and mean cuts in conventional forces, a major stumbling block to any agreement on arms control in Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman is wholly incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a positive response in an INF context. It must be fundamental to an INF agreement that we deal with equal numbers of like systems. As for Trident, I do not understand the Opposition Front Bench's stance. It seems that they want to rest on wholly conventional defence. I suppose that means that they are prepared to rest behind American nuclear strategic weapons. If so, why do the Opposition continue to propagate their highly irresponsible policy of kicking the Americans out of their nuclear bases in Britain?

    Strategic Defence Programme (Soviet Union)
    Mr. Merchantasked the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to draw the attention of the public to the Soviet Union's stategic defence programme.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): A paper on this subject was placed in the Library on 26 November 1985, and is made available on request to members of the public. The Government have also published a pamphlet entitled "Outer Space and Defences against Ballistic Missiles", which includes a section describing Soviet ballistic missile defence activities. These publications are kept under review, so that updated information can be issued as necessary.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more attention should be drawn to the Soviet star wars programme to demonstrate the need for more research into SDI in Britain? Does he further agree that knowledge of Soviet plans would justify in the public mind the need to speed up Britain's SDI programme? Is he aware that delays in SDI contracts have resulted partly in 42 jobs being lost in Newcastle at International Research and Development?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to and agree with my hon. Friend. Some people's attitude to the balance of these systems seems amazing. The Soviets have been engaged in such activities since the 1960s, and since the early 1980s they have been modernising their anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow.
    Mr. Dalyell: Was the Secretary of State consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson? Why did he leave the country without seeing—
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's last few words were lost in the noise. Could he repeat his question?
    Mr. Dalyell: Was the Secretary of State consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson, and for what reasons did he go back to the United States without having talked to British industry?
    Mr. Younger: I was not consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson. It was therefore entirely up to him whether he came or went.

    Land Rover
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about
    792
    purchases by his Department of military equipment from Land Rover and about exports by Land Rover for military applications.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Land Rover is a major supplier of vehicles to the services. Current Ministry of Defence orders on the company are for 4,500 of the new 110 model. A substantial order for military versions of the shorter wheelbase 90 model is expected in the near future. For many years Land Rover has been very successful in exporting its range of vehicles to defence customers. I am confident that the military versions of its latest 90 and 110 models will prove even more attractive than their predecessors in the overseas defence market.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he think that any of those exports would be put at risk if the ownership of Land Rover passed out of British hands? For example, has not General Motors said that it would discriminate as to the countries to which it would sell?
    Mr. Lee: The future ownership of Land Rover is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The Ministry of Defence has more than 20,000 Land Rovers in service. We look to the company to honour existing and planned orders, to provide adequate customer support in terms of spares and components and also to continue United Kingdom research and development and manufacture.
    Mr. McNamara: The House will be interested to hear that the Department of Trade and Industry will decide who will be Britain's main defence suppliers. In view of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given, would it not be correct and better to keep Land Rover under the control of a British company in Britain, able to meet Britain's defence needs, and not be at the whim of Detroit?
    Mr. Lee: We all heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the purchases by his Department and the military exports of Land Rover would not be affected if part of the company were owned by a foreign concern? Are not many suppliers to the Ministry of Defence also not entirely British?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point. In fact, the Bedford subsidiary of General Motors is a substantial supplier of medium tracks. We have about 21,000 of its medium tracks in our fleet. As a point of interest, in 1985 the Ministry of Defence took 6 per cent. of the total output of Land Rover, Solihull.

    North American Air Defence (Command and Control Systems)
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has instituted into the safety and effectiveness of North American air defence command and control systems.
    Mr. Stanley: NORAD's safety and effectiveness is a matter for the United States and Canadian Governments. The British Government's involvement is limited to the component of NORAD at RAF Fylingdales.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: What evaluation has the Minister made of the work of Mr. Daniel Ford, who made a detailed

    793
    investigation of the subject, which was published in the New Yorker and later in a book, and which drew attention to the highly dangerous aspect of relying on apparently sophisticated machinery?
    Mr. Stanley: I have not made a study of that publication, but I shall certainly inquire about it. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, NORAD is an early warning system which has been in existence over the lifetime of successive Governments. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had any anxiety about safety he would have pursued that with the leader of his party during the currency of the Lib-Lab pact.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In the course of Ministry of Defence research into the effectiveness of North American air defence command, will my right hon. Friend study the key role played by the National Guard and the United States Air Force reserve squadrons which constitute well over half of the front line and operate highly effectively?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. Undoubtedly, in the North American and United States context a very important role is played by the National Guard in the air defence of North America. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the context of the RAF Reserve, we have been trying to make increased use of our own reservists and volunteers for air defence purposes.
    Mr. Corbyn: In the context of the safety of American air defence, will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with the safety of the 16 cruise missiles which are currently circulating on Salisbury plain and the 45 support vehicles which are associated with them? Will he tell us if all those 60 missiles are live and what would be the number of people killed as a result of an attack on those missiles by anybody else?
    Mr. Stanley: We are satisfied with their safety. As we have said to the House on many occasions, no live missiles are used during training exercises.

    Defence Programme (Costings)
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude his long-term costing of the defence programme.
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the long-term costings of the defence programme.
    Mr. Younger: In the normal way I shall be considering the long-term costing over the next few months.
    Mr. Lamond: As the Secretary of State is obviously having some trouble finding the money to finance even the conventional defence of this country, should he not have been exerting a little more pressure on the Prime Minister so that she would not give such a strident reply to the Soviet Union when it made a proposal which would have enabled us to abandon Trident and save £10,000 million by doing so?
    Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thoroughly support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's constructive response to Mr. Gorbachev. The long-term costing takes place every year.
    Mr. McKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that a close analysis of the long-term costing would show that
    794
    the cost of Trident is such that we shall finish up with the most expensive defence force in the whole of Europe, but probably the worst equipped and trained conventional forces?
    Mr. Younger: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As he probably knows, there is a question down later on the Order Paper about the latest costing of Trident. In general, it takes on average only 3 per cent. of the defence budget, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to be a major inroad into the conventional programme.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend tell Lord Trefgarne to keep his hands off RAF North Luffenham in my constituency? If my noble Friend carries on talking about this, while today's question might be a Sidewinder near him, the next one will be effectively aimed.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's great concern about the RAF station in his constituency. My noble Friend will be looking at this matter closely.
    Mr. Favell: If, as we all hope, the GEC system for Nimrod is perfected, will the Exchequer be rewarded for its investment if subsequently the system is sold to Lockheed?
    Mr. Younger: That is another question, but I can say that if the Nimrod system, as it has been designed, is accepted, it will be against competition from other possible suppliers and will give the best possible value for money.
    Mr. Cartwright: What effects will the coinciding of the Tornado programme with the first years of the Trident programme have on the planned re-equipment of the British Army of the Rhine, given the 7 per cent. real terms cuts in defence spending after the current year? Is it not a fact that any incoming Government after the next general election will have to undertake a major defence programme?
    Mr. Younger: That is not the case. Every year there is a long-term costings review, and this year will be no exception. Defence expenditure in real terms is between 20 and 30 per cent. above what it was in 1979. Therefore, the position is better than it was when the Government came to power.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in peacetime there has never been a period during which long-term defence expenditure has not been looked at in depth, so that there is nothing new or novel in what is happening now?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. There has to be a continuing look at all the plans for defence expenditure if proper value is to be got for money. That is the principal objective in my Department.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the defence White Paper for the next financial year is not likely to appear much before the end of May? If so, does it not follow that the House will not be able to debate it until at least three months of the next financial year, to which the White Paper relates, have gone by?
    Mr. Younger: No final decision has yet been taken as to the precise date of publication of the defence White Paper this year. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it will not ve very different from the date on which it was published last year.

    Strategic Defence Initiative
    Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of orders to date won by United Kingdom firms to participate in the strategic defence initiative research and development programme.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): Seven contracts have so far been publicly announced by British companies for participation in the United States SDI research programme.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister comment on the fact that there are difficulties in negotiations between West Germany and America on the number of contracts being secured, and the fact that the former Secretary of State for Defence promised £1·5 billion of the so-called star wars crock of gold, but it looks now as if there will be only £300 million available out of a total of £26 billion?
    Mr. Lamont: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, if I heard the hon. Gentleman aright—I can hardly believe that I did—what happens in Germany is a matter for the German Government.
    On the second part of his question, it was made clear that there is no set-aside, but there is a marvellous competitive opportunity for British industry. We are the first Government to sign such an agreement with the United States Government, and it opens up tremendous opportunities for the technology of this country.
    Mr. Duffy: The House wants not fine words but evidence from the Minister. Will he confirm that late last year there was pessimism among United Kingdom firms, which was justified in the light of the problems with the Trident programme? Will the hon. Gentleman conduct a survey of firms so that we can have evidence, because the House shares such pessimism?
    Mr. Lamont: I see no reason to be pessimistic. The agreement was signed at the beginning of December, and already seven contracts have been signed. They are highly important, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be encouraging British firms to go out and sell their technology in the United States. We have an enormous amount to offer. There is no reason to think that British companies, which lead in defence technology in so many areas, cannot capture a significant part of that market.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that the SDI programme, whatever the cost and whatever the orders at present, will create thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom? That being so, is it not wrong for the Opposition to attack arrangements which will yield so many jobs for our people?
    Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is, of course, something nonsensical and inconsistent in the Opposition's attitude. They suggest that if there is an agreement with the United States, our scientists will emigrate. Somehow they believe that if there is no agreement, our scientists will stay at home. That is nonsense.

    Trident
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United States Secretary of State for Defence on the Trident programme.
    Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend will be having his first meetings with the United States Defence Secretary for both bilateral and NATO discussions later this month.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister make sure, when he has these discussions, that they are concerned solely with helping British technology to remain in Britain, not exporting British technology to be taken over by the Americans? I mean that not in an anti-American way, but in a pro-British way.
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend's question arises in connection with the Trident programme. In so far as we can manufacture the main elements of the Trident programme in this country, we are doing so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, over half the procurement of the Trident programme will fall to this country, including much high technology equipment.
    Dr. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that most of the contracts for the Trident programme have been agreed in substance between the two countries and that the programme will go ahead as it should?
    Mr. Stanley: The programme will certainly go ahead as scheduled. We believe that the British people, in their wisdom, will ensure the continuation of a Government committed to maintaining that vital element of our security.
    Mr. Canavan: Instead of discussing the Trident programme with representatives of a foreign power, would it not be more appropriate to discuss it with the people of Scotland, where the Government plan to locate the Trident base? If the Minister did that, does he realise that he would find virtually no support for Trident among the Scottish people, with the exception of the Secretary of State, who is out on a limb and completely out of touch with Scottish public opinion on this as on so many other matters?
    Mr. Stanley: When it comes to the next election, we will see what view those living in the Rosyth area and in Clydeside take of the Government's defence policies compared with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

    NATO (Expenditure)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss the defence expenditure of member states.
    Mr. Younger: Defence expenditure is the responsibility of national Governments. My NATO colleagues and I will discuss allied defence planning matters at the spring meeting of the Defence Planning Committee.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the majority of NATO member states have failed to honour their 1978 commitments to increase defence expenditures by 3 per cent. in real terms to prevent NATO from falling further behind the Warsaw Pact? How is it planned to hold those member states to account?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that many of our NATO colleagues have not succeeded in fulfilling their commitment to a 3 per cent. real terms increase in defence spending over the past six years. That will certainly be a topic for discussion between my colleagues and I when we next meet. I note what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Dalyell: Could we be clear? Is the Secretary of State saying that he heard nothing from the British embassy in Washington about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson and that Mr. Clarance Robinson never asked for security clearance?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Has this anything to do with NATO?
    Mr. Younger: I can confirm that we heard nothing of the visit of that gentleman, but we have asked for a report about it.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to the effects on our NATO colleagues involved with the potential manufacture of the European fighter aircraft if Spain votes to withdraw from NATO and therefore feels constrained to pull out of the European fighter aircraft project?
    Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's concern. It will be up to the Spanish people to make the extremely important decision whether to remain within NATO. The question whether Spain would, or would not, continue as a partner in the European fighter aircraft project would have to be addressed if the vote this week were to go the wrong way.

    Vickers Shipbuilding Yards
    Mr. Franksasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to Vickers shipbuilding yards.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: My right hon. Friend hopes to do so when it can be fitted into his programme.
    Mr. Franks: Will my hon. Friend note that, when he and/or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pay a visit to the shipyards in Barrow, they can be assured of a warm welcome from a company which has been returned to the private sector, with local management and local employees? Will my hon. Friend note that the welcome will be that much the warmer if my colleagues take the opportunity when they visit to announce the signing of the first contract for Trident submarines?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend says. I know that he very much welcomed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend may recall the 1974 Labour manifesto, which referred to an irreversible shift of wealth and power to working people. That is what is happening at the Barrow shipyards.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not jobs in Barrow and in Cumbria as a whole have been much better safeguarded if Vickers had been retained in the public sector? What assurances can the hon. Gentleman give the House that thousands of jobs will not be lost in Barrow as a direct result of this privatisation?
    Mr. Lamont: It is for the hon. Gentleman to give assurances about jobs, because everyone in Barrow wants to know how the Labour party will maintain employment in Barrow if it is going to cancel Trident and if, at the same time, it says that it will not increase spending on conventional defence.
    Mr. O'Neill: Before the hon. Gentleman goes to Barrow will he look again at Friday's statement by the
    798
    Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Will the money which is supposed to be saved by this profit-sharing deal, which is an integral part of the management buy-out, go to the Treasury, or to the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to answer another written question, when he will amplify what he said in his statement on Friday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters relating to the privatisation of Vickers are for the Department of Trade and Industry.

    Trident
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the performance to date of the Trident D5 guidance system.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in order to achieve the planned accuracy, the Trident D5 warhead will require in-flight mid-course correction from an American satellite? Will the British Trident warhead require a similar facility? What steps has the hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that we shall have independence of operation?
    Mr. Lamont: The guidance sub-system in the missile is of United States' design and supply. What the hon. Gentleman has just said, and what he said in his article in The Guardian, which I read carefully, is not correct. All the facilities with respect to information for targeting and to guidance, which are essential to the effective operation of the Trident force, are under our operational control.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was reported that Secretary Weinberger was mystified by the defence policy of the so-called alliance in so far as it relates to Trident? Will my hon. Friend therefore explain to Mr. Weinberger that the reason why the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) trots around after the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) contradicting him is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the alliance's policies follow the Liberal party, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays they follow the SDP, and on Sunday the defence policy of the alliance is closed?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said, Today's allegation by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) which is a new twist to the alliance's allegation about Trident, is totally incorrect.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: What is the accuracy of the guidance system for cruise and Trident?
    Mr. Lamont: Obviously that is not a matter on which I can comment publicly.
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident missile programme.
    Mr. Younger: The Trident programme has been re-costed as part of the annual long-term costing of the defence programme. By convention, that costing assumes exchange rates prevailing last June, which for the dollar gives a rate of £1 equalling $1·28. On that basis, the revised estimate for Trident is £9,869 million at average 1985–86 prices, an increase of £584 million over last year's estimate. Of this increase, £324 million reflects a lower

    799
    exchange rate than was assumed last year. The remaining increase of £260 million, or only 2·8 per cent., reflects inflation offest by real cost reductions arising from better definition as the programme progresses. Costs, therefore, are firmly under control and I am glad to say that the programme remains on time for an in-service date of the mid-1990s.
    I am making available to the Public Accounts and Defence Committees a more detailed report on the state of the project as a whole; a copy of this report is also being placed in the Library.
    Mr. Yeo: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that detailed answer. Although the rise in the pound against the dollar since the date quoted will further reduce the cost of Trident, is he aware that many people remain concerned about the way in which expenditure on Trident may curtail spending on other important defence programmes?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. As he has indicated, the calculation of costing has been done deliberately by me on exactly the same basis on which, by convention, it is done every year, that is, basing the dollar at the rate it was in June of the previous year. On the weight of the Trident programme as a whole, I can confirm that this leaves it still as averaging only 3 per cent. of the defence programme, or about 6 per cent. of the equipment programme. That is well within our means for such an important system to our defence.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Secretary of State not accept that last year when the costing was given it was the Government's intention to keep level funding in the defence budget, but now the increased cost of Trident has to be borne on a defence budget that is being cut by 7 per cent. over the next three years in real terms? Can he really go on claiming that he can support the conventional defence effort that is currently planned?
    Mr. Younger: Very much so, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman may notice in the publication that I am putting in the Library that the rate of inflation in the Trident programme this year is very much lower than that of the defence programme as a whole, because of the offset of other savings that we have made. In that way, it is well within what we can afford.
    Mr. Marlow: As totally conventional defence, however much it costs, would not in the last resort be able to deter a nuclear power bent on the conquest of the United Kingdom, is not Trident cheap at the price and jolly good value?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. There is no other way at a comparable price that we can so secure peace for the future.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not the case that the increased cost of Trident announced today is bound to come out of the budget for conventional defence spending, since, with the conventional defence budget static or falling in real terms and the cost of Trident increasing, there is no other place from which the expenditure on Trident can come? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the American end of the cost is almost totally out of the control of the British Government, because it is dependent on the exchange rate and on the cost charged by American armaments manufacturers?
    Mr. Younger: As the right hon. Gentleman will notice, I have deliberately kept the calculation on costing within the normal convention of the exchange rate, which is not, as it happens, altogether favourable to the case I wish to put. I hope he will regard that as fair. On the balance of the programme, the key factor is that the total weight of Trident in the defence budget is very small; for instance, smaller than the Tornado programme. As it secures our safety and defence for the future, I should have thought that most people would regard it as an extremely good bargain.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State not accept that to spend money on nuclear weapons to this extent has the effect of squeezing conventional forces out of meaningful existence in many roles? Would it not be much better for Britain to have meaningful conventional defence rather than to go on with the nuclear pretence?
    Mr. Younger: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has lost touch with reality. We are looking at a defence budget which is already well over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979 when the Government took office. To talk about that sort of effect on the conventional forces is unrealistic. If any attempt were made to produce a comparable effect for our defences by conventional means only, it would cost vastly more than the Trident programme.

    Defence Establishments (Relocation)
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to put forward specific proposals for moving defence establishments to the north of England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lee: This is a matter for continuing review as opportunities arise, such as when major investment is required, but as I said in answer to my hon. Friend on 11 February at column 440 of the Official Report, all proposals will need to stand on their economic and operational merits.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend comment on the imbalance between the north and south of Britain in the number of jobs for service men and civilians, and will he ask our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for funds to correct that topsy-turvy imbalance?
    Mr. Lee: It is for my hon. Friend to approach the Treasury for extra funds. Seventy per cent. of service personnel and 64 per cent. of civilians whom we employ are based in the south-east and south-west regions combined.
    Mr. Beith: As there is little prospect of a defence establishment moving to the north-east of England in the next year or so, will the Minister at least think in terms of our high unemployment level when he considers contracts such as that for an auxiliary oiler replacement vessel, which could well be placed at the Swan Hunter yard on Tyneside?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is being clever in moving to a completely different topic. Tenders for the AOR vessels are being evaluated. Tenders are in from Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff.
    Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend also take into consideration the fact that ex-service men who have served

    801
    their country and enjoy a pension are banned from jobs by Cleveland county council and so their employment prospects are even further reduced? Will he bear that in mind when seeking somewhere to establish a place where ex-service men can work?
    Mr. Lee: I am appalled to hear what my hon. Friend says. The behaviour of Cleveland county council sounds appalling.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate, for the latest date for which figures are available, the total annual costs of all British nuclear weapons currently in deployment.
    Mr. Stanley: It is not the practice to make available details of year-by-year expenditure on nuclear weapons. However, estimated expenditure on the nuclear strategic force in 1985–86 is shown in table 2·3 of volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985".
    Mr. Cohen: Is not that a chronic and enormous waste of money, which would be better spent on social provision and jobs in peaceful manufacture? Will not the billions of pounds spent on Trident be a further appalling imposition, which will not make the British people any safer? Should we not be seriously negotiating on the Gorbachev proposals for nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Stanley: Our expenditure on deterrence is a fraction of what we would have to spend if deterrence broke down.
    Mr. Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that spending on nuclear weapons as a proportion of a total defence budget has remained remarkably constant under Labour and Conservative Governments in recent years, never dipping below 1 per cent. or rising above 3 per cent.? Does he agree that if spending on nuclear weapons represents just 2·8 per cent. of our total defence budget, that is a remarkably good investment for the British public to maintain their peace and security?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is an extremely cost-effective and relatively cheap insurance policy.
    Mr. Skinner: How can the Government claim that the money is well spent, especially in view of the announcement of the £9·8 billion that is spent on Trident, when the same Government could not find more than 40p for the old-age pensioners a few days ago and yesterday came to the Dispatch Box and announced that prescription charges will go up by 1,000 per cent.? Do the Government not have a strange language of priorities?
    Mr. Stanley: The Government can justify the good sense of the expenditure on the modernisation of our strategic deterrents in exactly the same way as the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported no doubt justified their expenditure on the modernisation of the Chevaline deterrent.

    Trident
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the value of work and jobs which are likely to accrue to Scottish-based contractors and professional firms from the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: It is not possible to break down estimates of work and jobs in terms of geographical area, firms or constituencies. However, it is currently predicted that on average 8,500 direct and 6,500 indirect job opportunities will be created throughout the procurement period. The number of jobs will run at 15,000 direct and 12,000 indirect during the peak years.
    Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Can he assure me that, where appropriate professional and contracting expertise exists in Scottish firms, they will at least receive due consideration when tendering?
    Mr. Lamont: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Now that the Government's efforts to save the tin dealers seems finally to have failed, can my Cornish miners assume that the £50 million offered and now saved can instead be used to save the Cornish tin mines? If the answer to that question is no, can the Prime Minister tell us about the priorities that offer help to the dealers but not to the miners?
    The Prime Minister: The £50 million was offered provided that other countries of the 22 agreed with us on a scheme to secure a return to orderly trading in the tin market. They did not, so the £50 million, of course, is withdrawn. With regard to the specific question the hon. Gentleman asks, it is too early to say. Cornish mining companies will be better able to assess their commercial prospects once a market price for tin has been re-established. The Department of Trade and Industry is willing to consider grants towards projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation. However, no decisions can be taken until a realistic assessment of viability can be made.
    Mr. Harris: Can I press my right hon. Friend further on this matter? While I recognise that the Government did take the lead in putting forward the £50 million to try to save the international aspects, can she please treat as a matter of utmost urgency the plight of the Cornish tin mining industry, particularly Geevor mine in my own constituency?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of all the mines and of the importance of securing employment in Cornwall. We shall be in a better position to judge when we know the price of tin, once the markets have reopened. As I indicated, we shall be willing to consider grants towards projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I ask the Prime Minister whether she agrees that her important exchange of letters with Mr. Gorbachev should be published in the public interest, and

    803
    may I ask whether she will seek to ensure that that publication can take place? Meanwhile, may I ask her whether she recalls saying in November 1983 that the best Christmas present that President Yuri Andropov could give the West would be to dismantle the SS20 missiles and accept the zero option? Now that General Secretary Gorbachev has publicly made exactly that offer in his 15 January statement, why will she not at least pursue discussions based on the proposal to get SS20s out of Europe altogether?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that that is the offer that Mr. Gorbachev has made. He has not made a total zero-zero offer. He has made an offer which would mean that a number of the missiles went to the far east of the country and could, of course, be moved back. That is totally different from a zero-zero option.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister really saying that she has moved the goalposts so far as to inhibit the removal of all intermediate weapons from the east and west of Europe because of the problems relating to Asia? Will she, I repeat, pursue the question of the dismantling of SS20s, so that not only the menace in Europe is removed, but there is a possibility of ensuring that no additional menace arises even in the far east?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is no point in merely moving weapons to a place from which they could be moved back to be a menace to this country. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what Mr. Andropov said when dealing with certain proposals. He said, "We are not a naive people." What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that advice to heart.
    Mr. Kinnock: On such an important issue that affects the fate of all of us and, indeed, future generations, I hope that the Prime Minister will be a little more rational in her approach and will not simply resort to party political bickering. The right hon. Lady says that she wants to concentrate on achieving realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control measures. Why does she not pursue the possibility of securing a freeze in nuclear arms deployment, since plainly that is the most realistic, the most balanced and the most verifiable of all arms control measures?
    The Prime Minister: There are very good reasons why one should not have a freeze. First, one freezes in imbalances. Secondly, unless one modernises the strategic deterrent it soon ceases to be a deterrent. That, presumably, is why the right hon. Gentleman's party modernised the Chevaline.
    Mr. Cashasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Left-wing councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool deserve what they are getting at the moment for their wilful misconduct towards their ratepayers? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that to see the Leader of the Opposition trying to get off this hook is a pathetic sight? Will she confirm that this Government will maintain the laws on surcharge and disqualification as the only reasonable
    804
    remedy for making sure that Left-wing councillors throughout the country do not continue, wantonly and extravagantly, to use ratepayers' money?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Local councillors have a duty to set a legal rate by the appropriate time. It is vital to maintain the sanctions of law to ensure that they carry out their duties properly. That we shall continue to do.
    Mr. Steel: As the Governments of both the Soviet Union and the United States are keen to secure an arms control agreement in Europe, why does the Prime Minister insist on going ahead with the escalation that is caused by the Trident programme when those Governments are content to leave the British and French deterrents out of the count as things stand at present? Does the Prime Minister not accept that the Trident missile is becoming a two-time loser; first, because of its effect upon our defence equipment programme, and, secondly, because it is becoming an obstacle to an arms control agreement?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, Trident is not an intermediate weapon but a strategic weapon. It is vital that we keep our independent nuclear deterrent, and it is not a deterrent unless it is modernised. Therefore, we shall go ahead with the modernisation.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider abolishing the Property Services Agency and putting the work for which it is responsible out to private enterprise, in the interests of greater efficiency? Is it not a paradox that although the Government are urging the abolition of direct labour departments the Property Services Agency is being retained?
    The Prime Minister: Quite a lot of the work that the Property Services Agency manages is already put out to private enterprise. At the moment we have no plans to privatise the entire agency.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Prime Minister aware that if prescription charges had risen in line with the retail prices index since 1979, they would rise in April from 35p to 37p, not from £2 to £2.–20? Does she not understand that this is nothing but a tax on those who are sick?
    The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the enormous exemptions from prescription charges. He knows that these will remain and that they will remain the same. Moreover, the proportion of the family practitioners service that is financed by charges is lower now—at under 10 per cent.—than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The income received from charges provides about £500 million for the National Health Service. That is equal to 20,000 doctors, 65,000 nurses or 500,000 operations. Without the charges, what would the hon. Gentleman do about that?
    Mr. John Townend: In view of the rise in violent crime and, in particular, the number of appallingly brutal cases of rape, would it not be appropriate for the courts to impose savage sentences as a deterrent? Is it not time that hon. Members re-examined their consciences to see

    805
    whether they were right—against the wishes of their constituents--to take away from the courts the right to impose sentences of corporal or capital punishment?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Lord Chief Justice has set out a very clear and firm position for the courts in rape cases, and the sentences which should be imposed. I have no doubt that they will follow that. His guideline judgment was, in general, very well received. As my hon. Friend also knows, legislation restoring capital punishment would have to get through this House and the other place. We have already had one debate on that subject. My hon. Friend knows my views, but it is a matter for the House to decide according to its vote.
    Mr. Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister read the third report of the Public Accounts Committee, which clearly shows that the British Telecom issue was hopelessly underpriced? Is she aware that a number of people in the City have made vast sums out of that underpricing? If she must continue the privatisation programme, will she at least compare the method of selling such public assets with the way in which Government stock is sold through the Government Broker, getting a very fine rate by releasing it at suitable intervals, at prime prices?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the report. However, the privatisation of British Telecom was a huge success, and enabled enormous numbers—[Interruption.—of people who worked for British Telecom, as well as small savers, to obtain shares which they would never have obtained under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Fairbairn: While the Government are contemplating some considerable alterations to the criminal law of England, will they bear in mind a slightly more modest alteration to the law of England, which is already part of the law of Scotland, and to which objection has never been taken? I refer to the fact that pleas are not taken until after the jury, which is to try the case, is sworn. In that way, the outrage over the Patrick Reilly case would never have arisen.
    The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, pass on my hon. and learned Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. On that particular case, it is not open to me or to the House to suggest that the defendant was guilty of an offence of which he was acquitted. Obviously I can say nothing more than that.
    Mr. Chris Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: If the Prime Minister is so proud of her Government's record on the Health Service
    Mr. Dickens: Rightly so.
    Mr. Smith: If the Prime Minister is so wrongly proud of her Government's record on the Health Service, can she tell the House and the people of London why St. Thomas' hospital announced last night that it would be able to take only emergency cases from August, why Bloomsbury health authority is having to make major cuts in provision for my constituents and why 221 hospitals have closed in the past five years? Is that not the reality behind the misleading statistics she always uses?
    The Prime Minister: On overall expenditure, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have an excellent record on the Health Service, the best record of any Government since the Health Service began. Being a London Member, the hon. Gentleman is aware that we who represent London constituencies have sometimes seen resources transferred from London to the north to increase facilities there. Does he object to such equality between the north and the south?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the impending request by the European Commission for a £1 billion supplementary budget for 1986? Will she be sure to turn down such a request, as it breaches the financial discipline pledged to this House in return for the increase in VAT contributions?
    The Prime Minister: We shall fight it hard, as we usually do. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is outside what we would expect and that we should not be expected to contribute even more to the European Community.
    Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March 1985.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that over the past few years a great many people on all sides of the print and newspaper industry in Scotland have worked a great many hours to create good trade union-management relations, so that the Scottish newspaper industry has one of the best no strike records in Europe? In view of her readiness to condemn bad union practices, will she now condemn the absolutely suicidal management policies of Robert Maxwell, which have resulted in the removal of the Scottish Daily Record from the news stands today?
    The Prime Minister: It is vital that the newspaper industry uses the latest technology. I remember visiting the offices of the Glasgow Herald on the paper's 200th anniversary, where the latest technology was being used without problems. I hope that the same will be true for the Daily Record after negotiations.

Written Answers
3.33 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and protection against what I believe to be a deliberate misuse by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of the system of written questions and answers to spread inaccurate information about the Labour party's spending proposals and about Labour's education plans, in particular.
In a written answer on 3 March, which appears in column 29 of Hansard, the Chief Secretary gave a calculation of the cost of the Labour party's spending proposals for schools. According to footnotes 17 and 18, he purported to be quoting from a press conference which I had given on 16 April 1985 and which was reported in The Guardian of the following day. I did not make the estimate contained in the Chief Secretary's written answer, nor did The Guardian report me as making that estimate. I should add that the Chief Secretary's estimate was five times greater than the proposals for increased spending which I actually made.
Could you advise me, Mr. Speaker, on how we can prevent the system of written questions and answers from being deliberately misused in this way?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter on a point of order, and this has enabled me to look into it. I have already received a letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the same subject, and have replied to it. What I wrote then to the right hon. Member I now say to the hon. Member.
The costing of a party's political programme and the accuracy or otherwise of that costing are matters for public debate. As Speaker, I have no place in that. The hon. Member has complained specifically about the Chief Secretary's costing of the official Opposition's proposals being published in Hansard which, he has said, gives authority to much erroneous matter. There are ample precedents for the policies of Opposition parties to be so costed. I can only advise the hon. Gentleman to make use of the ordinary procedures of the House to call Ministers to account.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from your reply that, although you told the hon. Gentleman clearly that this matter was not a point of order, he insisted on raising it as a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Not at all. I received a letter from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who has not risen on this point of order.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Accustomed as we are to Tory inflation, in that same parliamentary reply the Chief Secretary to the Treasury inflated the Labour party's commitment to the aid programme by 300 per cent. Surely there must be some redress to correct Hansard and to deny the impression given by the Government that the Labour party's programme is inflationary. We are delighted to increase the aid programme, but not on terms dictated by Ministers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We can complete this matter. There are ample parliamentary opportunities to deal with it—for example, during the Consolidated Fund debate later this week. These are not points of order for me.
Mr. Reg Freeson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although we accept your ruling about debates and exchanges on the costing of Opposition programmes, can you advise us what we can do, not about the costings as such, but about the publication of facts and figures attributed to documents which do not exist? I refer to item 13 in the answer concerned, in which it is stated, for example, that, according to a document published by the TUC, 125,000 new starts will be made in housing, although that figure does not appear in the document.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not matters for me. I am in no way responsible for the answers that Ministers give.
Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that, in so far as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary may have sinned, he may have underestimated the cost of the prolifigate policies of the Labour party?
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister is not accountable for the Labour party's programme, costings or otherwise, was it not an abuse of the House to use the facility of written questions and answers? As for the cost of producing that answer, will the Minister now be surcharged and disqualified?
Mr. Speaker: As I said in my reply to the original point of order, there are ample precedents for Opposition programmes to be costed.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: May I ask a question to clarify my mind about the nature and implications of your ruling, Mr. Speaker? Does your ruling imply that Ministers may use the columns of Hansard to give information which is known to be misleading, to both Parliament and the public? Is it not the case that written answers have a certain authority and are used by us in the House as the basis for our arguments and debates, as, indeed, they are used outside the House? What are the implications of your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is asking me to adjudicate on whether the answer is correct. I have no knowledge of that. I cannot be held responsible, among my many other responsibilities, for answers that are given to questions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take only two more points of order, one from each side of the House.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, without questioning your judgment, whether you are being sufficiently tolerant to the Opposition. At the time of the last Budget the shadow Chancellor called for an increase in public spending of £5 billion and his colleagues have subsequently called for an increase of £24 billion. Is it not inevitable that the dispute should have spread outside the shadow Cabinet across to these Benches?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: How can you, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else prevent the Government from telling lies?
Mr. Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman on a final point of order, but I cannot be held responsible for answers given in written answers to questions.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order to offer some sort of defence for the Chief Secretary. It is only fair to point out that, out of his 28 items, two are accurate—we propose to increase child benefit, and we propose to help the long-term unemployed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 6893/79, a proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the member States relating to self-propelled industrial trucks, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 11387/84, a proposal for a Directive on making specific training for general medical practice mandatory in all member States of the Community, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Dental Auxiliaries Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Plant Breeders' Rights (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 339) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 338) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of defence questions. In your good judgment, Mr. Speaker, you called me twice to ask the same question concerning the visit of a most senior United States official to this country to obtain most sensitive information from British companies in relation to strategic defence initiative research. On the first question the answer from the Ministry of Defence Was, more or less—I do not think I do it an injustice—that it had nothing to do with the visit and that it was not a matter for the Ministry. When, fortunately, you called me a second time to ask the same question, the Secretary of State for Defence said, yes, the Ministry was now asking for a report on the visit of Mr. Clarence Robinson. A very serious issue arises—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears to me that this is an extension of Question Time. The hon. Gentleman has put a point of order to me, but I have no knowledge of the gentleman.
Mr. Dalyell: This is a substantial issue. The point of order is whether Ministers should reveal the whole truth in answer to direct questions. For example, was Mr. Kenneth Hambledon sacked—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know Mr. Kenneth Hambledon either. The answers to questions are not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to embroil me in the answers to questions. Points of order must be on matters over which I have authority. I have no authority over whether this gentleman was invited to this country.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that you said on a previous occasion that you knew nothing of Miss Colette Bowe? Simply because you do not know that Mr. Kenneth Hambledon was sacked and removed as head of the SDI office does not mean that it is something which should not be explained to the House. Otherwise we will go ahead with the militarisation of space without elected Members of Parliament knowing what is going on.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman's points would make a very interesting debate under the Consolidated Fund. I will, try to be here then.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order on which I can rule?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is absolutely genuine. Now that your ruling has been made, Mr. Speaker, about the previous business, which I shall not speak about, as different points of view have been expressed, may I take it that it will now be in order for Labour Members to table questions to the Government asking for costings of the programmes of separate sections of the Tory party, the Liberal programme, the SDP programme, those sewn up between them, and of all other groups in Parliament? If, as you have said, it is in order to do what has already been done, it must be in order for us to expose the SDP, the Liberals and every wing of the Tory party.
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter, but if questions are tabled about programmes, and the Government have had them costed, they would be perfectly in order.

Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings (Amendment)
3.45 pm
Mr. Roger Freeman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal section 2 of the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969, to prevent the demolition of redundant Anglican churches without listed building consent.
As the law stands at present, it is possible for an Anglican church which is no longer required for ecclesiastical purposes to be demolished without listed building consent, provided, of course, that the demolition is following a scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1983. The purpose of my Bill is to change this procedure.
The exemption from the need for consent is a privilege that is enjoyed solely by the Church of England. All other church denominations must obtain listed building consent before they may demolish their churches. This is an anomaly that should not be allowed to continue. May I make it plain that my Bill proposes no changes to the procedure in regard to churches that are in use; it is addressed only to churches that have been declared redundant by the church authorities.
In the 1984 report of the Anglican Churches Faculty Jurisdiction Commission entitled "The Continuing Care of Churches and Cathedrals" it is stated:
"it does appear to us that there could be advantage to the Church as a whole if at the final stage after all the possibilities under the Pastoral Measure had been exhausted, and when the Commissioners had decided that there was no alternative but to demolish, the exemption were lifted and the building in question brought under the normal Listed Building Control".
I agree with the commission, and my Bill would implement its conclusions.
Under the present law, an objection to a proposed demolition can be lodged, but the Church Commissioners' statutory obligation to consult relates solely to the advisory board for redundant churches, which is a Church organisation. Therefore, if the Church Commissioners wish to demolish, there is nothing that the secular authorities can do.
The church of Holy Trinity in Rugby was a listed church which was recently demolished. Bowing to opposition to the proposed demolition of that grade I listed building, the Church Commissioners agreed to hold a non-statutory public inquiry. The inspector's report said that the church should not be demolished until all of the possibilities for re-use had been more extensively explored. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), then the Secretary of State for the Environment, went even further and said bluntly that Holy Trinity should not be demolished. Nevertheless, the Church Commissioners decided to ignore the recommendations—the inquiry was non-statutory, after all—and the church was demolished in June 1983.
Other examples of listed Anglican churches demolished include St. Edward Holbeck in Leeds, St. James's in Pentonville, London, and the Church of the Saviour in Bolton. I estimate that since Parliament passed the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969, some 70 listed Anglican churches have been demolished.
There is a multitude of possibilities for the re-use of redundant churches. The redundant mediaeval churches at Orton and Little Oakley in my constituency of Kettering

813
are now used as training centres for stonemasons. The church at Newton, also in my constituency, is now used as an educational field centre for the training of schoolchildren. The example that hon. Members are probably most familiar with is the outstanding baroque church of St. John's in Smith Square, which is now a concert hall.
Re-use schemes such as those serve to preserve important church buildings while making them useful for the community. I believe that more churches would be thus treated if listed building consent were required before an Anglican church could be demolished. That is not to say that the statutory system for secular listed building control is perfect, but it has many strengths. Relying upon advocacy and public protest, the secular system allows the local authority, the amenity societies and the general public to challenge in an open inquiry anyone who wishes to demolish a listed building. Naturally, if the case for demolition is weak, the weaknesses will be revealed at the inquiry.
I believe that my Bill need have few, if any, financial implications for the taxpayer or for the Church. Of course, if we are to preserve more churches for the sake of architectural interest, the resources of the redundant churches fund which was set up by the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969 will have to be increased. I believe that it could be increased through an appeal for public donations and not by an additional burden on the taxpayer, who already pays two thirds of the annual cost of replenishing the redundant churches fund. or, for that matter, by the Church which provides the balance. The redundant churches fund has hardly exploited its ability to raise money by public subscription and donations and should do so in future in order to maintain more redundant churches.
There is no reason today why redundant Anglican churches should continue to be treated differently from any other listed church or listed building because, after all, once redundant, the building is effectively secular. The present exemption from listed building control for redundant Anglican churches must be withdrawn to help to preserve those churches of England which constitute such an important part of our heritage. I believe that my Bill would go some way towards doing that.
My Bill is supported by all the national amenity societies: the Ancient Monuments Society, the Civic Trust, the Victorian Society, the Georgian Group, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and SAVE Britain's Heritage. It is also supported by the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils and by other bodies concerned with the care of churches, including Friends of Friendless Churches, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of
814
Chartered Surveyors, the Council for the Care of Churches and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.
3.54 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the motion?
Mr. Jessel: Please. I think that it should be put on record that there are some arguments against the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), although I know that he means well.
In my constituency there is a redundant church, the church of St. Albans at Teddington. If my hon. Friend's Bill were to go on the statute book, the Church of England may be forced to find about £1 million to maintain the fabric of a redundant church for which it has no use when the living church has moved across the road to St. Mary' s, Teddington. St. Mary's is an old and beautiful church with a flourishing congregation.
It does not seem right that the Church of England, which is in an exceptional position because it happens to have an exceptionally large number of churches through its heritage of church buildings—many of which are of architectural interest, but many of which are not—should be forced to provide such large sums instead of being able to devote all of its resources to the purposes of its ministry. Its purpose is not to serve as a public museum organisation, and if society and the community at large want redundant churches to be preserved they should find the resources through their own organisations—Parliament, Government, the ministries and local government—and not expect the Church of England to deplete the funds that might be used for missions, pensions for clergymen's widows and so on.
Therefore, I feel that my hon. Friend's Bill is not entirely reasonable, and I cannot support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Freeman, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Robert Rhodes James and Mr. Richard Wainwright.

REDUNDANT CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Roger Freeman accordingly presented a Bill to repeal section 2 of the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Act 1969, to prevent the demolition of redundant Anglican churches without listed building consent: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 April and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

European Community Shipping Policy
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5635/85, Communication by the Commission to the Council on progress towards a common transport policy in maritime transport; endorses the view that the instruments are necessary; and welcomes the United Kingdom's endeavours to encourage the adoption and implementation of these measures which will provide for a freely competitive shipping policy for the Community and the necessary powers to combat the growth of third country protectionism which damages or threatens to damage Community trade and the trading position of Community fleets.
This debate is both important and opportune. The package of measures attached to the Commission's communication 5635/85 represent the first steps towards a common European shipping policy. I shall be attending a Transport Council in Brussels on Friday to debate these measures and to try to conclude the negotiations on them. The Commission's memorandum covers a great deal of ground and the four draft regulations on countermeasures, freedom to provide services, competition, and unfair pricing practices together provide the essential tools for dealing with some, though not all, of the problems facing our own and other Community fleets.
In opening this debate, I shall concentrate on these four draft regulations, but I recognise that hon. Members will want to range wider than the regulations. The House will want to debate the whole question of the shipping industry, and I do not suggest that that would be out of order. With the leave of the House, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply both on these regulations and on the wider debate, if I have the good fortune to catch your eye again at the end of the debate.
I am sure that hon. Members will understand that this is not a good time for me to debate the shipping industry's taxation regime. We are only a week away from the Budget, and I am sure that I shall be forgiven if I avoid such matters.
However, before starting on the Community's shipping policy, I must refer to the question of British Ferries Sealink's access to Belgian ports, which has been mentioned in the House on more than one occasion. As this issue has not yet been resolved, my officials yesterday issued letters of consultation about the possible use of section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 to restrict the access of the Belgian state ferry company—RMT—to United Kingdom ports. I am sure that this makes it clear how seriously I am taking this problem. I hope that BFS will now very quickly receive approval for the service which it wishes to operate.
Mr. Peter Rees: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for intervening so early in his speech. I welcome the news that a letter of consultation will be issued. May I take it that my right hon. Friend envisages at least the possibility of a comparable restriction on Belgian ferries to that imposed on all British ferries at the port of Zeebrugge to ensure a rough measure of reciprocity unless he receives a favourable reply from the Belgian authorities?
Mr. Ridley: The Merchant Shipping Act 1974 requires me to have a fortnight's consultation and I am embarking on that from today. I very much hope and believe that it
816
will be possible to settle this matter quickly, and I strongly hope that it will not be necessary to make a restriction. I am sure that the Belgians will feel that it is more opportune that we should come to an agreement amicably and I will try to achieve that.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the many friends of Belgium in this country will echo his last sentiment and hope that he is successful in his efforts. Is there not, however, a risk that if we ban Belgian ships from ports in this country they will retaliate by banning Townsend Thoresen ships from docking at ports in Belgium?
Mr. Ridley: I regard myself as being as good a friend of Belgium as anybody in the House. I hope and believe that it will now be possible to resolve the matter in a short time.
In Europe, we need to achieve two things. First, we need the Community to set its own house in order and to do away with restrictive laws which deny shipowners from one member state the opportunity to compete with shipowners from other member states on an equal footing. Secondly, the Community needs to arm itself with appropriate powers to deal with problems that arise as a result of protectionism or unfair practices in non-Community states. The draft regulations help a great deal in solving both problems. I shall discuss each in turn.
The first, annex II-1, is a draft regulation which provides for co-ordinated Community action, covering both diplomatic initiatives and counter-measures to deal with moves by third countries to restrict competitive access to ocean trades. The second, annex 11–2, is a draft regulation creating a freedom to provide shipping services to, from, between and within member states. That regulation would open up Community cabotage trades—coastal trades—and deny member states the ability to operate bilateral cargo sharing agreements with third countries and to maintain cargo reservation laws.
The third, annex II-5, is a draft competition regulation that will give effect to the treaty of Rome's competition articles, and will provide the basis on which liner conferences will be exempted from the anti-cartel provisions of the treaty and the conditions which must be complied with if the exemption is to be enjoyed. The fourth, annex 11–6, is a draft regulation providing for the imposition of a Community levy in cases where third country carriers are engaged in unfair pricing practices and thereby doing material damage to Community carriers.
I shall elaborate on each of the regulations.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is something slightly unrealistic about this debate, and that if he was making his speech in two years' time there might not be any British mercantile marine to discuss? Have the Government addressed themselves to the serious erosion of the British merchant marine which has been going on for the past five years? In two years, we may have nothing to bargain with in the EEC.
Mr. Ridley: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said at the beginning of my speech. I said that I would be happy to respond to wider questions, but the right hon. Gentleman must now address himself to the full regulations which are before the House. The regulations are of material significance, and could greatly benefit the British merchant marine.

817
First, there is now a broad measure of agreement on the co-ordinated action regulation, with only a few detailed points still to be resolved. One of the points that concerned us originally was that a single member state could prevent action under the regulation if a unanimous decision of the Council was needed in order to instigate the joint action envisaged. However, one of the amendments to the treaty of Rome agreed at the Luxembourg summit last December was that the qualified majority voting procedures should apply to provisions for shipping. Although the summit decisions have still to be formally ratified by Parliaments of all member states, when they are, it will be possible for co-ordinated action under this draft regulation to be decided by qualified majority voting procedures, thus giving more flexibility and reducing the possibility of blocking by one member state
The second regulation is the draft competition regulation—annex 11–5. This has been under negotiation in Brussels for over three years. It is common ground both within the United Kingdom and throughout the Community that a regulation in this area is necessary, if only to resolve the legal uncertainty which currently surrounds international liner shipping, particularly liner conferences. The regulation vitally affects both shipowners and shippers and in recent weeks a number of changes have been negotiated to deal with points raised on both sides. I think that the balance struck between their disparate interests is now about right. We are a major shipping nation and an island that is more dependent on trade than on any other major industrial nation, and I am glad that the regulation upholds the conference system in a competitive environment, while adequately protecting the interests of shippers. There is now a broad measure of agreement on this draft regulation, although, as with the co-ordinated action regulation, there are still a few detailed points outstanding.
The third regulation—annex 11–6—to the memorandum is the unfair pricing practices regulation. Negotiations on this too have gone well. This is the instrument which will enable the Community to deal with the unfair competition and distortions of the market by the Soviet and other state trading shipping lines whose subsidised operations unfairly undercut the rates of the commercial Community lines. This regulation is in fact an anti-dumping regulation.
Incidentally, annexes 11–3 and 11–4—the draft consultation decision and the draft directive on definition of "national shipping line"—need only a brief mention. Although we could support the draft consultation decision as it stands and the idea of a "national line" directive, neither we nor our European colleagues attach the same importance to these instruments as to the four draft regulations. So these two draft instruments are being laid on one side for the time being.
These three regulations are in an advanced state of negotiation. I believe that it will be possible for these to be approved by the Council within the next month or two. We have, however, made it clear to our Community partners that we want to see all four of the regulations brought into force together. This brings me to the fourth—the freedom to provide shipping services. Here negotiations are proving altogether more difficult.
We are particularly anxious to see the cabotage markets of all our European partners opened up to ships of all member states. The United Kingdom cabotage market is already open, but our shipowners have no access to the
818
considerable trading opportunities along the coastlines of Italy, Greece and the Greek islands. Nor can a British ship delivering goods to Bordeaux and, going into Rotterdam, take on cargo from Bordeaux to Cherbourg en route as a French vessel can. This is a particularly wasteful loss of opportunity. I regret that there is still opposition to the principle of liberalisation of cabotage within the Community, particularly from Greece and Italy.
We have succeeded in coming to an informal bilateral agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany to enable our ships to participate in German cabotage, but we have been unable to interest Greece or France in a similar arrangement. There is also pressure for a long transitional period—as proposed in the Commission's draft—from Spain, Portugal, and France. Some member states are also trying to protect existing unilateral cargo reservation laws and bilateral cargo-sharing agreements. We are trying to get these phased out, or, at the least, to ensure that any that are allowed to continue should be specifically agreed by the Council. These are important issues. It is particularly intolerable that our cabotage should be open to all, whereas half the Community close their cabotage to us.
Soon we will have to decide whether to continue to fight for this regulation against such substantial opposition. We have three options. First, we might succeed in getting the principle of open cabotage and no cargo reservation accepted but with so many derogations that the concession would be worth little to our shipping industry. Second, we could seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on the principle of closed cabotage and cargo reservation, which seems to us to be in direct conflict with the right of establishment firmly embodied in the treaty. Thirdly, we could abandon the campaign for open trading within Europe and ask Parliament to give us powers to close our own coastline.
We must make our decision against the background that all the member states, including ourselves, want to agree the other three regulations and get this urgently needed Community shipping policy off the ground. There is much of value in those regulations, particularly in the ability they will give the Community to stand together to resist protectionism and unfair practices.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Why do all four regulations have to stand together?
Mr. Ridley: The other nine member states very much want the first three regulations to be adopted.
Mr. Milian: What do we want?
Mr. Ridley: We want all four regulations to be adopted. If we continue to insist on the fourth regulation, we may not get the first three. That is the dilemma.
On the other hand, to depart from the principle that all four measures should be introduced together would in itself be a major shift in our position. The General Council of British Shipping has already said to me, keen though it is on the freedom to provide services regulations, that we should not drag out the negotiations on them indefinitely, thereby losing the advantage of the other three regulations. I shall, of course, consult the council closely in the weeks ahead.
The four regulations are all directed towards ensuring the fullest possible competition on trades within, to and from the Community. In the future, with the regulations in force, we should be in a much stronger position, on a Community-wide basis, to defend our shipping interests.
4.11 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I was disappointed when the Secretary of State said that he would concentrate on the regulations and then said that he would be glad to respond at the end of his speech to the wider issues which were bound to be canvassed in the debate. That was a negative approach. Instead of asking us for questions to which he could respond, the right hon. Gentleman should have stated the Government's policy on merchant shipping. We could then have decided for ourselves whether that policy was adequate and whether there were deficiencies or gaps. We could have constructively criticised the Government's policies. However, the right hon. Gentleman ducked the issue by saying that he would respond to questions. The truth is that the Secretary of State has no shipping policy. That is why he has left the answers until the end of the debate. He hopes that our constructive debate will give him some clues on how to proceed. The problem is that the shipping policy of the Secretary of State is basically to leave everything to free market forces. The Government do not intervene. That is the same as not having a shipping policy.
As the Secretary of State referred at the beginning of his speech to his action on Sealink, I shall refer to Sealink now rather than later as I had intended. The Secretary of State has said that he has now taken preliminary steps under section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 to take reciprocal action against the Belgian state ferry company—RMT—based on the fact that there have been restrictions against our rightful shipping interests. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) ask whether, if we took this action, there was a danger that the Belgians would reciprocate. It is precisely because the Belgians have taken this action against us that we have taken reciprocal action against them.
Sealink British Ferries got in touch with the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, of which I am a member, and asked the unions to have a discussion with me on the problems faced by Sealink. Effectively, the Belgian port authorities are trying to freeze Sealinkfirst, freezing Sealink out of Ostend and then refusing to give Sealink right of access to Zeebrugge.
I should like to put on record my appreciation to the Secretary of State for his responses both in writing and when I took a deputation of trade unions to see him. I pay tribute to the way in which he has taken the matter extremely seriously. The right hon. Gentleman and his staff in the Department of Transport have done a lot of work trying to resolve this problem without resorting to this action. I think that at times the right hon. Gentleman may have been irritated by the way in which I constantly pressed him to take action under sections 14 and 15 of the Merchant Shipping Act. I think that he is as irritated as I am with the way in which the case which we have been jointly prosecuting has not been helped by Sealink's apparent prevarication about its needs.
I found it difficult to accept that, when the Belgian port authorities asked for an operating plan, Sealink said that it would take between a week and a fortnight to produce such a plan. I began to form the conclusion that Sealink was not serious about serving Zeebrugge. I was so concerned about that possibility that I wrote directly to Mr. Sherwood asking for an assurance that he intended to
820
maintain passenger services. The Secretary of State had already told me in answer to a private notice question that there was a possibility that Sealink would change its mind. Last week, I wrote again to Mr. Sherwood saying that the threat of redundancies due at the end of this week would have to be withdrawn before we could give any further support to taking reciprocal action.
I am not sure whether the Secretary of State will make use of a section 14 order or of a section 15 order. I think that a section 15 order would allow him to prevent RMT from serving British ports for 90 days without reference to the authority of Parliament. The advantage of using that provision is that we would not have to extend the parliamentary process before the application. I understand that a section 14 order would require parliamentary approval before coming into effect. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us which order he will use. I would prefer the immediate measure. I normally do not ask for orders to be brought into effect without Parliament first having discussed them but, in these circumstances, it may be necessary to take this action to concentrate the minds of Sealink and of the Belgian port authorities. Hon. Members should remember that 60 per cent. of the port of Zeebrugge is owned by the Belgian Government, which is why we can use sections 14 and 15 of the Merchant Shipping Act.
On Thursday, the Secretary of State will meet the Belgian Minister of Transport. I am not sure whether that will be a wholly convivial occasion or whether some work will be done beforehand. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to raise this issue sharply with the Belgian Minister. The right hon. Gentleman can say without any equivocation that he has the backing of the whole House in taking this action, if necessary.
I hope that it will not be necessary to take this action. I should prefer it if the matter were resolved, if Sealink could start operating its services and if the threat to seafarers' jobs were removed without coercion. If there is coercion, wider co-operation may be made more difficult in the future. I hope that the saga involving Sealink and Belgium which has haunted me for the past three months will soon end.
Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the way in which Sealink has conducted negotiations. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, although the St. David has been switched to the Stranraer route, another ferry, the Votigern, could easily operate in and out of Zeebrugge, apart from any freight services that Sealink operates from Dunkirk?
Mr. Hughes: It is true that Sealink wishes to operate the Vortigern, which is a combined freight and passenger vessel.
I come to the substantive point of the debate. I apologise if I have commented on Sealink for too long. In examining these European Commission documents, we should look at the background. There is no doubt that the background is the disastrous decline in the British shipping fleet. In 1975, just a decade ago, there were 1,833 ships registered in the United Kingdom, representing 32·1 million gross registered tons. By 1980 the total had gone down to 1,358. At the end of 1985 it had reduced to 600. It is estimated by trade union sources that by the end of this year the fleet will have gone down to 300, half its present size. That means that since 1975 there will have been a reduction from 1,833 to 300.

821
That dire forecast of only 300 ships is not fully accepted by some analysts. However, even the General Council of British Shipping, the organisation representing owners, forecasts the size of the fleet at the end of this year as 400. Whichever figures one accepts—and trade union forecasts have proved extremely reliable in the past—for a maritime nation so dependent on international trade such figures must cause everyone to be concerned. Even the Government, who seem to accept with equanimity the decline in manufacturing industry, must be concerned at the peril which faces us as an island trading nation.
The defence capacity of the nation is severely threatened. The Government could not mount another Falklands campaign with the projected or even the present size of the fleet, not that I want to see another Falklands exercise. Very few hon. Members want that; I do not think that even the Prime Minister wants it. Nevertheless, the fleet has fallen to such a small number that should such a need arise again, there is no possibility of mounting such an exercise. I find it hard to accept that from time to time Government Ministers accuse us of being unpatriotic when, by their actions, they have been much more unpatriotic than we have ever been in anything we have said or done.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the defence of the nation. No doubt he will be interested to know, despite the Secretary of State's public statements inside and outside the House, that when there was a naval exercise off Norway last week it was necessary to charter Danish vessels to move British troops and stores to Norway. That happened despite the assurances that we could mount another Falklands campaign.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That disproves the old adage that one should never give way. I was not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has told us; I am grateful to him for drawing it to the attention of the House. That shows that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about the size of the British fleet. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), whom I am glad to see in his place, raised the issue with the Prime Minister on 4 March. He asked:
"Will my right hon. Friend look again at the figures for the appalling decline in Britain's merchant fleet? Is she aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are now desperately concerned about this matter and its implications, both for our defence policy and economically?"
He pointed out:
"More than 80 per cent. of British trade is now carried in ships with foreign flags."
He asked the Prime Minister to do something about it. The Prime Minister's response was woefully inadequate. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) wrote to her the next day to point out the full facts and to advise her that she was excessively naive. That was not overstressing it.
The other issue that concerns us as much as the economic effect of the fall in fleet capacity is the job losses for seafarers. Many thousands of seafarers have been beached because of the number of ships laid up. The threat to seafarers' jobs is compounded by the growth of the pernicious practice of registering under flags of convenience. When that happens, inevitably there is pressure to reduce manning levels and wages, to reduce or extinguish trade union rights and to replace British crews by Third world crews with much reduced wages and
822
conditions. I do not know whether the Secretary of State approves of the practice but perhaps we can find a clue to the Government's attitude if we read the Prime Minister's answer on 4 March; I shall quote part of it:
"the important thing for the future of our merchant marine is to ensure that British shipping can compete with the fleets of other nations on costs. That is one of the problems."—[Official Report, 4 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 151–52.]
That says simply that it does not matter under what flag British shipping is registered, what conditions the crews have or whether they have trade union rights; it does not matter whether Third world crews are exploited so long as the merchant fleet can make money. In the Prime Minister's view, that is the beginning and end of the matter.
The Government will claim that many of the problems have arisen because of the recession in world trade. I do not deny that. We cannot consider a merchant shipping policy seriously without accepting that there has been a decline in world trade. The oft-repeated refrain from the Government in reply to charges about their failure to have any economic objective for the protection of any part of British industry is that it is not their fault. Their excuse is that the problem is caused by external forces and that they have had nothing to do with it. They say that they have to sit back passively and accept the position.
One of the major causes of the decline in the British fleet and its aging nature is that the Government have reduced and extinguished tax incentives for the depreciation of write-offs. The fleet of the EEC is also aging; only Italy and Greece have older ships than Britain. The General Council of British Shipping is seeking help from the Government in the Budget. The Secretary of State said that he would not answer any questions about fiscal policy when we are only a week away from the Budget. Nevertheless, I ask him to take seriously the cry for help and to use the new cloak of Cabinet responsibility, which has suddenly returned to the British political scene, to make an input into the Cabinet about assistance for British shipowners.
I want to enter one or two caveats about my support for the British merchant fleet. Any incentive given to British shipowners should be to build new vessels. Shipbuilding is going through a very difficult period. If I may be parochial for a moment, there is a shipyard in my constituency, not a big one in British terms or in world terms. It employs 650 people whereas about a year ago it employed 1,000. It is facing a great threat to its existence directly because of Government policy over privatisation. In their anxiety to privatise profitable yards, the Government said that they would privatise naval yards. Because of that, naval yards can no longer have access to the intervention fund for merchant shipbuilding even if they can get orders. The Minister should take note of that. We have pressed hard to get ships built in Britain. We need a full programme spread over several years.
Mr. Don Dixon: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it should be a condition of any incentive that ships should be built in this country? Should we not take note of what Japanese shipowners have done? No Japanese shipowner has built a ship outside Japan since 1947.
Mr. Hughes: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has anticipated me by about one sentence, but I am none the less grateful for that because it reinforces the point that I was making, which is that we need a full programme,

823
spread over a number of years, to replace the fleet. But I want to see those ships built in the United Kingdom, not abroad. I want it to be made a condition of any assistance that is given to the building of ships that those ships should be built in Britain.
I know that the Minister will say that to tie aid to British shipyards would be contrary to EEC rules, because that is what he and his predecessors, whether in his Department or the Department of Trade and Industry, have said before. Sometimes I despair of the Government. They are busily playing cricket by the old rules, but we know perfectly well that our European partners in shipbuilding are bypassing them with hidden subsidies in the form of generous tax relief of one kind or another. No Labour Member, and I suspect few Conservative Members, will lend their support to taxpayers' money going to buy ships built abroad.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Is it not also important that ships should be manned by British crews?
Mr. Hughes: If we go on like this, the House may be under some delusion that my hon. Friends have written my speech for me, because that is another point to which I am coming.
I would not lend my support to the case which has been put forward by the General Council of British Shipping that taxpayers' money should be used to buy second-hand ships laid up abroad at distress prices. That is unacceptable. We should also be certain that any tax incentives for shipowners should not only apply to shipbuilding in Britain but should ensure that the ships are crewed by British subjects under proper conditions with full trade union rights and participation.
We need a fully thought-out shipping policy and the EEC regulations go nowhere near to matching that need. The regulations have clearly been under discussion for a long time and the Government, and indeed the Commission, have still not got them right. However, having said that, I had better say—not simply because it will be read in Hansard, but because I believe it—that I am making no criticism of the EEC commissioner who deals with these matters. He was a distinguished Minister in the Department of Industry and in that office did a lot for British shipping. He has a clear concern for shipping matters and for the people who sail our ships, but I know that he and the Commission are under constraints, not the least of which is the Government's approach to the matters.
Annex II-2 clearly states that
"Restrictions on freedom to provide sea transport services within the Community shall be abolished by 1 July 1986".
The Minister said that there were a number of different way in which we might proceed. We might proceed down the road laid out in the document, which is that for certain classes of trade there is to be a derogation—a phasing-out for five years. But, more importantly, cabotage shall end 10 years from 1 July 1986. But even that is qualified. Each time we look at the document we see further and further qualifications. If any member state for whom that applied found that it created particular difficulties, the matter might then extend beyond 10 years. In a delightfully elegant and vague phrase, it says that the phasing-out period
"shall not apply where its application would cause particular difficulties."
824
That completely negates the purpose of the regulation. I happen to agree with the Minister on this. There is a case for ending cabotage and there is a case for increasing cabotage, but there is no case for continuing the existing rules and for phasing-out over 10 years because while that is going on our merchant fleet will decline further. We shall still be refused access to those countries which operate cabotage rules and at the end of the 10 years nothing will be left.
Cabotage is necessary and I would much rather go down the road of saying that we should apply cabotage in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that cabotage is necessary to stabilise the already too narrow base of our fleet. Once it is stabilised we must use cabotage and many other methods to broaden the base of our fleet.
The problem with the regulation—I hope that I have misread it but I suspect that I have not—is that it will make it difficult for us, or indeed any other EC maritime nation not using cabotage, to erect new cabotage rules after 1 July this year. Not only does the regulation make it more difficult for our fleet in the next 10 years, but it removes our right to bring in cabotage rules for our country and that is something that we cannot possibly accept. I should tell the House that the next Labour Government firmly intend to use cabotage for the British fleet.
Annex II-4 seeks to define a national shipping line. As I read it, there are three criteria. Article 1, paragraph 2, says:
"(a) the management head office must be situated and the effective control exercised in a Member State;
(b) the executive board must consist of persons the majority of whom are nationals of Member States;
(c) the company shares must effectively be controlled through a majority shareholding by nationals of Member States who have their domicile or registered office in one of the Member States."
That almost reads as though there would be total control within a member state of the EC. But there is nothing in the document so far as I can see about the use of nominee shareholders, which would certainly be a way of getting round paragraph (c). There is nothing at all about a ship being registered in the member state. Therefore, the vessels and the crews will not be subject to EC safety standards. That will not help the EC fleet and it will certainly not help our fleet.
Annex II-6 deals with unfair competition. Under the regulations as they are published, only the shipowner may complain about unfair trading practices. Why should not the trade unions involved in shipping matters be allowed to complain to the Commission about unfair trading practices? After all, they have a much more personal and direct interest in unfair trading practices than the owners.
I want to refer briefly to safety, which is a matter of great importance. The most recent figures show that British ships have serious accident rates. The incidence of fatal accidents for personnel in British ships is 35 times that of manufacturing, six times that of construction, and four times that of coal mining. In other words, there is still a great need for safety on ships, for training, and for care of the people who sail in the ships.
In addition, we must be concerned about the total loss of ships through accidents. From 1970 to 1974, 355 ships were lost in the world. From 1975 to 1979, 391 ships were lost. From 1980 to 1983, 237 ships were lost. That is a serious matter, about which we should be concerned. There is clearly a relationship between the age of the vessels and their loss. In fact, 22 per cent. of vessels lost

825
were over 25 years old in 1983, but only 5 per cent. were less than five years old. While there is that direct link, that is not the only issue. It is not a simple straightforward matter of the age of the ships and their loss, because old ships are running about the seas perfectly well managed causing no safety hazard, but there is a clear correlation between the way in which ships are managed and the risks which are being taken.
It is a matter of serious concern that the record of losses in world fleets has shown no real improvement in the last 20 years. Given that there has been a massive explosion of technology and of available information and so on, all this must make us wonder what is happening.
This leads us to ask how many ships are being lost because of fraud, how many are being deliberately sunk to get the insurance money from them. I believe that this is causing a great deal of concern not only in this country but throughout the EEC, and I am sure that the Commission is worried. I wish to ask the Government what they are doing about it, what investigations they are undertaking, and what pressure they are applying to ensure that the issue of fraud is taken much more seriously.
One matter not mentioned in the documents which we need to consider seriously is the problem of world-wide services, that is, the issue of ships carrying such large containers that they can undercut prices and sail all over the world carrying container traffic. Two shipping lines are causing concern, Evergreen Shipping, which is sailing out of Taiwan, and United States Lines, sailing out of the United States. There are grounds for at least suspicion that the kind of rates being charged suggest that a very heavy subsidy is being paid on the operations by Taiwan. This needs to be examined closely.
The Minister has said that the regulations deal with the threat from the Russian fleet. He is apparently prepared to act against the Russians and to say openly—I am not sure that he is on firm ground, but there is certainly cause for concern—that the Russians are dumping, but he is not prepared to say that the Taiwanese and the Japanese are dumping in regard to their shipping practices. I think the Minister should look at that closely. He should tell us what he is going to do. He should not rest behind the fact that there exists a series of regulations which it has taken a long time to bring together.
The regulations represent not the maximum but the lowest common denominator of what can be wholly agreed by the member states, even bringing into play the fact that the most recent changes in community law make it possible to decide these things by majority vote instead of unanimously.
Mr. Dixon: With regard to the Japanese, I have a letter from the managing director of Stephenson Clarke Shipping in which he says:
"The British Merchant Navy is competitive in crew costs with most Western fleets and the Japanese."
Mr. Hughes: The problem is that different voices say different things. When the National Union of Seamen asks for better pay, it is constantly told that its members are not competitive. I believe that we are competitive and that we give a first-class service.
The Minister and Government believe wholly and solely in the operation of free market forces and are unwilling to act even when the facts of decline are staring them in the face. Despite the work that has gone on in the Commission's deliberations, the documents do not match
826
up to the full extent of the problems that the EEC fleet has to face, far less our own fleet. What we must and will have is a full policy for shipbuilding to reverse the disastrous decline both in the fleet and in shipbuilding. I wish to goodness that we on the Opposition Benches had the opportunity to put our plans into operation now instead of relying on the present untrustworthy Government.
4.44 pm
Sir Edward du Cann: In his interesting opening to the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was important and timely. I think that he could have put it more strongly. The subject of the debate is, I think, of the greatest importance to the economic and defence well-being of our nation. The situation we have to face is undeniably critical. But timely the debate certainly is, for it is appropriate that the view of the House should be solicited before my right hon. Friend has his discussions in Brussels, in which we wish him every success. I thought that he was entirely right when he said that it is appropriate that, in the course of the debate, we should discuss the context in which these discussions will be held.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said by implication that we should use the occasion to ensure that we develop the House's thinking in relation to policy. I agree with that. I think it appears to many people outside the House, as it does to many of us in the House, that there is a vacuum on policy. It is to that aspect of our affairs that I shall endeavour to direct my remarks.
On more than one occasion I have expressed my deep concern at the decline of British maritime strength. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was good enough to quote one example of that, when I put a question to the Prime Minister a week ago. The statistics are well known. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North gave some of them. In 1975 there were some 1,600 ships of 500 gross tonnage or above on the British register. By 1985 the figure was down to some 600, and now it is probably less. Our merchant fleet in effect is the smallest that it has been this century. That is the situation over which we in this House preside and of which, I believe, we should be ashamed.
We have no distant water trawler fleet. Only 44 per cent. of offshore supply vessels are UK-owned. The number of seafarers, of men employed in the sea trades, continues to fall. It was 140,000 or thereabouts at the outbreak of war, it is 30,000 today, and it will be less tomorrow. Then there is the lack of profitability of British ship-owning companies.
The implications, both economic and from the defence point of view, are serious indeed. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North reminded us, 80 per cent. of United Kingdom exports now are carried in non-British ships. There is thus an immense potential for economic and political blackmail.
I believe that the advantages of what is called the cab rank policy—that is, that those in Britain who wish to send goods by sea will get a price advantage if there are ships queueing up for their business—are purely temporary and are likely to be illusory. We have lost some £2 billion per annum in invisible earnings. Not only have we lost much direct employment, but we have lost much more indirect employment in the ship-related industries of

827
this country: shipbuilding—which hardly exists today—ship repairing, the other marine trades, engineering, technology, finance, insurance and so on.
All this is bad enough—desperate enough, I would say—but when one examines the situation in defence terms, the picture is horrendous. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North pointed out, it is indeed doubtful whether we could mount another Falklands operation. We simply do not have the ships now to engage in a local conflict of that sort. It is no good my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for whom I have the deepest respect and affection, saying that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. It simply is not so. I do not know what advice she is receiving, but, if it is advice which leads her to that conclusion, I can only say that, in my view, it is wrong.
When one examines the situation which might exist in general conflicts, the supply and replenishment of this nation in wartime would be quite impossible. In his deadly intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) made that abundantly clear.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North pointed out, it is a paradox that both the enemies of the free world and the most violent advocates of free trade are making common cause against the interests of this nation. He rightly said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is proposing action against the one. In my view, however, one cannot have a left without a right. Therefore, it is appropriate that action should be proposed against the other.
The House knows that a parliamentary maritime affairs group has been established on an all-party basis to alert public opinion about this serious matter and to endeavour to propose practical action to remedy it.
What is to be done? I maintain my view that it would be right for the Government to appoint a single Minister to be in charge of maritime affairs. I remember, as do other right hon. and hon. Members, that when Winston Churchill found that it was essential to get aircraft built during the war, he swept away the obstacles in order to get the job done. He appointed Beaverbrook, who was provided with a clear remit and given power. One person was provided with all the necessary authority, which meant that the job got done. The situation is so serious today that a similar dramatic remedy is needed.
There is other action that we can take unilaterally, especially action of a fiscal nature. However, it is an international problem. It involves the changing patterns of world trade and the ambitions of some developing nations that involve them in protectionism. They have national aspirations with which one can sympathise but to which bodies that ought to know better—for example, the United Nations—give too much practical backing. There also is a great deal of economic opportunism. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also referred to the attitude of the Soviet Union, which is that maritime transport is a most significant economic and political asset that has to be exploited.
All of this means one simple fact: that, because of an excessive number of ships, with too many ships chasing too few cargoes, there is a real world problem. If it were not for money being too readily made available at the wrong rates of interest to finance shipbuilding, there would probably be no problem at all. It is absolutely clear
828
that the traditional concept of free and fair competition in world shipbuilding terms is currently at stake. Some would say that it does not exist.
To mitigate that problem and to resolve it, international co-operation is needed. Where better to launch it, one might think, than in the European Community? The European Community is by far the world's largest trading bloc. It generates 25 per cent. of world trade. It has an enormous population of 320 million. Through the ports of the European Community there is handled, by weight, twice the volume of that of the United States and three times the volume of that of Japan. Therefore, it seems to me that the overwhelming issue for all member states of the Community is to ensure that it maintains sufficient maritime strength to prevent the domination of maritime transport in its waters by its competitors' fleets.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Britain's status as a maritime nation even antedates the industrial revolution position occupied by Britain and that if we want to recover some of the aspects of our maritime authority and power the Government should step in and ensure that that happens?
Sir Edward du Cann: I accept both of those points at once and without reservations of any kind.
If the objective of the European Community ought to be to ensure that its maritime strength is maintained, that is not what it is doing. Western Europe's shipping, in terms of gross registered tonnage, has been reduced by approaching one third in the last decade, while ships that are registered under flags of convenience, or in the Pacific basin, or by COMECON continue to increase. It is clear, therefore, that the situaton will not be self-adjusting and that action is urgently needed to reverse the trend of decline.
In this context we have these documents. I say at once that this first attempt to develop a comprehensive Community maritime policy is to be welcomed. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, it has taken a long time to produce, but, alas, I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, for what it is worth, it is on the whole a disappointment. Its recognition of the dependence of the European Community on maritime transport is a good beginning. I do not deny that the policy contains many useful features, but its failures are more significant: they are these.
What the objectives of that policy should properly be are not defined. As I have tried to show, given the already stated dependence of the European Community on maritime trade, it follows that no important element of the means of conducting that trade should be in the hands of economic or strategic competitors. To put it briefly, I believe that the essential aim of the European Community's policy should therefore be to retain control of its maritime transport system. Nor does it help that the European Community's policy has to be co-ordinated between a number of separate directorates, in just the same way as it falls into the laps of different Ministries in the United Kingdom. I truly believe that it is no blueprint for prompt and effective action to perpetuate diffused responsibilities.
It seems to me that in two significant respects these papers lack a practical approach. The most important immediate objective must surely be to create a business climate in which member states' businesses owning

829
merchant fleets can operate and prosper, for the reality is that if profits cannot be made by shipowners they will go out of business and stay out of business. That economic fact of life is, apparently, largely unrecognised in Brussels. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that more emphasis is laid upon that fact.
Nor, I believe, are the realities of competing internationally, when costs or taxation levels are different in the European Community from those of our competitors, apparently comprehended. That is another serious weakness in these papers. Indeed, I go further and say that there is a culpable omission. The papers do not deal in any detail with the problem of Government subsidies to the shipbuilding industries—the point that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) made in his intervention. That is the root of the problem, but it is not mentioned at all in these papers. My view is that the European Community should make a strong contribution to the debate on this subject and get that debate going on a worldwide basis. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be successful in provoking that debate.
It is right that the papers insist that state aid should not distort competition between Community shipowners, but it is a second serious omission that the papers do not discuss the type of fiscal regime that would enable the European Community's shipping companies to compete on equal terms with companies in other parts of the world. Again, that is a practical matter, to which we should address our minds. As careful students of the European Community and its ways may think, such omissions are, perhaps, not surprising. The treaty of Rome is on the whole an inward-looking domestic document. It follows, perhaps inevitably, that more emphasis is placed in these papers on freedom of movement inside the Community than on wider considerations. I believe that the emphasis in the documents is wholly wrong, and that is why they are so disappointing.
I thought that one of the arguments in favour of Britain joining the Community was that we would be able to bring a new breadth of outlook to its affairs. Indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will dedicate himself to doing that. There is, after all, so much that the European Community could and should be doing that is constructive. For example, it could create conditions, standards and training that would encourage young people to serve at sea; it could encourage the adoption of better technology aimed at reducing operating costs; it could develop comprehensive traffic management systems to improve standards of safety and navigation; it could take collective measures to reduce pollution and other incidents. Perhaps most importantly, the Community could be directing its actions to areas of international policy where its enormous collective strength as the world's largest trading bloc could ensure the compliance of non-member states and their fleets with fair rules of behaviour, including commercial and Government practices, technical and crew standards and conditions of employment. But alas such things are not mentioned, despite the fact that this is the first definitive document to come out of the Community and that we have waited so long for it.
It is time for an end to rhetoric, generalisations about competition policy and the like. The nation and the Community face a crisis. The position is deteriorating.
Ministers, especially our Ministers with all their experience, have great responsibilities, but they live up to
830
them. I am sure that it is possible to identify and largely to eliminate the causes that force owners to flag out their ships or to go out of business. Let it be done. I am also sure that it is possible to reduce those high cost elements within our domestic control that prevent European shipowners from competing profitably internationally. Let that be done, too.
We have great strength in the EC—we should use it. I thought that another practical reason for joining the EC was the advantage that we were told combination would bring us—in other words, by joining with other nations the United Kingdom would acquire more influence and benefit. Of course, we know that assurances over EC affairs are often far from the reality. Let hon. Members look at our experience over budgetary controls. I believe that the House has been most grievously misled in this regard. However, that is a matter that we should pursue on other occasions.
Those of us who want to see the Community succeed now that the decision has been taken to sign the treaty of Rome find it worrying that we simply do not go for such potential advantages and seem unwilling to exploit them. As a result, the whole country seems to think that there is nothing but disadvantage to this adventure. That is not, I am sure, what the most passionate advocates of signing the treaty of Rome expected.
Why is there so little argument or pressure to maximise the advantages? There should surely be more. As has been said, in trying to obtain advantage from our membership of the EC no subject is more important than that of cabotage. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who is no mean expert on this subject, has been pressing the point for a long time.
Our home waters now stretch from the Baltic to the Aegean. If Turkey joins the EC, the Black sea win also be included. There is a thought. Australia and New Zealand reserve their cabotage. The Latin American free trade area countries reserve their cabotage, and so does the United States of America under the Jones Act of 60 years ago. The latter's waters stretch from Guam in the Pacific to Alaska via Hawaii and the Caribbean. They cover an immense area. I merely say that we should do the same, and thereby provide a home base upon which to build prosperity.
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said and with what I thought my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was hinting at. If we cannot get a Community policy, we should go it alone. We should refuse to have in our waters the ships of those nations that refuse us access to theirs. It is time that we were a little more selfish in pursuing our own interests, and a little less sympathetic to the other fellow's point of view.
It is surely right to say that if action of a more imaginative kind is not taken by the Community in order to defend its interests, we face the prospect of an EC merchant fleet that will continue to decline. Equally, the prospects for ancillary industries will be bleak. That would be quite unacceptable to me, to most hon. Members, as well as to our nation and the peoples of the Community. We need a much greater sense of urgency and determination than we have so far seen. I hope with all my heart that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, an old personal friend of mine for whom I have such regard, will set an example. I look to him to provide that determination and urgency. It is all there to win, and the cause should be won.

831
The way things are going is nothing short of a scandal. We seem wholly to lack the resolution, strength of purpose and idealism to defend the interests of our people. I repeat that that situation is wholly unacceptable to me. I hope with all my heart that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will change it very much for the better.
5.6 pm
Mr. Bruce Millan: I am glad to speak after the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) because I agreed with many of his remarks. Indeed, I think that most of them found an echo on the Opposition side of the Chamber.
So far, the debate has been wide ranging, but I wish to make some fairly limited though extremely important points about the regulation on free trade within the Community, which is included in annex II-2. I also wish to set my remarks in the context of the deepening crisis in our shipping industry. The figures are included in the Commission document, although unfortunately they only go as far as 1983. It is clear that, between 1975 and 1983, United Kingdom fleet tonnage fell from 32·18 million tonnes to 18·18 million tonnes. That catastrophic decline is still going on. Although I am not sure of the current figure, it must be nearer 12 million tonnes than 18 million tonnes.
Between 1975 and 1983 there was not a corresponding reduction in the Community's tonnage. It remained virtually the same, dropping from 94 million in 1975 to 93 million in 1983. The reduction in the British fleet was made up by a considerable expansion in Greece's tonnage. Greece is now a member of the Community and is one of the countries that reserves total coastal trade to its own ships.
Thus, the reduction that we have suffered has not been repeated elsewhere in the Community. There has been some decline in other countries, and the position has certainly deteriorated since 1983, but the fact remains that the British fleet declined considerably during that period and is still declining. It causes considerable worry to Members on both Opposition and Government Benches. It has been met with constant complacency on the part of the Government. That complacency was reflected in the attitude of the Secretary of State for Transport in his speech this afternoon. It affects jobs, strategic interests and defence interests, specifically in relation to maritime operations. It also has important implications for the shipbuilding industry, in which I have a strong constituency interest through Govan Shipbuilders, one of the best merchant yards in the United Kingdom but one which is suffering from an appalling lack of orders at present which, if not remedied soon, will mean further redundancies later this year.
There are therefore several aspects to this debate because it goes beyond the shipping industry and involves defence, strategic interests, the future of our shipbuilding industry and the rest.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not go too far down that road, because shipbuilding is not within the compass of our debate.
Mr. Millan: You will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to go down that road at all, even though
832
practically everyone else has, including the Minister. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman made a virtue of it in his opening speech, which I think you, Sir, had the misfortune, or perhaps good fortune, not to hear.
In any case, I want to turn immediately to annex 11–2, the draft regulation on free trade, and to deal particularly with coastal traffic, cabotage and offshore support vessels. The present situation is wholly unsatisfactory because there are no restrictions at all on access to our own coastal trade, whereas a number of Community countries impose restrictions. Some of us have pressed the Government for a very long time now either to impose restrictions on our own coastal trade—a course which I and other Opposition Members favour—or at least to take reciprocal action against those Community countries which prevent us from having access to their coastal traffic. That, of course, has been refused by the Government and, apart from an informal agreement recently reached with Germany, we still have substantial restrictions in Denmark, France, Greece, and Italy.
If this regulation went through, it would make it impossible for any member of the Community to indulge in these cargo reservation practices. That would perhaps be acceptable if something were to happen quickly, but we have the extraordinary situation that the draft regulation not only says that any of these cargo reservation practices in relation to coastal traffic will be phased out only over 10 years; it also states that if, at the end of 10 years, there are particular difficulties the phasing out may take longer, or may never happen.
It is ludicrous for us to accept a regulation of that sort. If all restrictions were to be removed immediately, I could see some justification in the Government looking with some favour on this regulation; but such a transitional arrangement would simply mean that we would continue to give free access to our own traffic to members of the Community and others, while not having the advantage of access to the coastal traffic of other member states. There can be no justification for accepting the regulation as it stands.
Instead of arguing, as the Government have tried to argue for a number of years, for the removal of restrictions by other Common Market countries, it would have been far more sensible for us to impose restrictions here in the United Kingdom. That would have brought them to their senses. It would also have been intrinsically the best policy for this country. It is still the best policy for this country. Therefore, there can be no justification for accepting this draft regulation as it stands, nor do I believe that it will be possible, given the vested interests involved, for us to have the regulation amended satisfactorily.
In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State why we had to take all these regulations together so that we had to accept the whole package or none of it. I received no satisfactory answer. For the life of me, I do not see why we must adopt that approach. Certain parts of the other regulations are satisfactory. Because of restrictions of time, I do not want to deal with these other regulations, but I do not see why we should have to accept everything as a package. If that is to be the approach of the Government, we must not accept any of the regulations, because this one is so unsatisfactory.
It is unsatisfactory not only as far as cabotage is concerned. The same is true for our offshore support. There has been quite a change of view on the part of that particular bit of the industry which, being part of the

833
General Council of British Shipping, has until recently, as I understand it, followed the usual line of the GCBS—being in favour of free trade without restrictions, being very unwilling to see action by the British Government to protect British interests, and taking the view that that would be against our interests in the wider field of shipping. That is a view which I have never held, and which I have argued against with the GCBS on different occasions.
The British Offshore Support Vessels Association is now a separate body. It takes the view that offshore support vessels should be completely removed from this regulation. I agree with that. If the regulation has to go ahead at all, offshore support vessels should certainly be removed from it. But again the regulation would simply say that there would be no possibility of the Government taking restrictive action to support our own offshore support vessel industry, one of the few bits of the shipping industry which has been doing relatively well in recent years—although even there some difficulties are being experienced, with boats being laid up.
We have the extraordinary situation, as the BOSVA points out in a recently circulated document, that in the North sea 170 vessels are operating in the United Kingdom sector at present, of which only 111 carry the British flag, about 30 of which are believed to be controlled by foreign operators, mainly Norwegian and American. So, out of 170 vessels, only 81 are genuinely British owned. Of 79 vessels in the Norwegian sector, 78 are Norwegian and only one is not.
I know that there have been discussions between the British and Norwegian Governments about this, and that all sorts of reasons are given for it. The reality is that the Norwegians very sensibly keep their offshore support a Norwegian operation. We ought to do the same. It is ridiculous that we should allow Norwegian vessels to operate freely in our sector of the North Sea when, in practical terms, it has proved impossible for British or any other support vessels to enter the Norwegian sector. The same applies in other areas such as the Dutch sector, although the two important sectors are the British and the Norwegian. Ours is open to everyone and we are paying the penalty. The Norwegian sector is restricted, in practice, to the Norwegian industry.
The British sector is the most important of all. If this regulation goes ahead, any possibility of our protecting it in the future for our own industry will completely disappear. I am delighted that at least one part of the General Council of British Shipping has recognised the need to protect our interests in important areas.
The whole business of free trade in shipping is a myth. If it ever operated, it has certainly not operated for many years now. Successive Governments have tended to say that there must be minimum restrictions on free trade because it is in the interests of British industry, and under the present Government that is almost dogma. In reality, the result has been that most export traffic is carried by non-British ships in new areas of activity, such as the North sea, where we are losing out to foreign competitors. We are being trampled on by other member states, and we are not taking effective retaliatory action.
If the regulations are passed, especially the one to which I specifically referred, far from helping the position as a genuinely active, interventionist Community policy, they will make it even worse and goodness knows, the British shipping industry is already in a critical condition.
5.20 pm
Sir David Price: Like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), I have both personal and constituency interests in the fortunes of the British Merchant Navy. As the House knows, it has been in steady decline for the past 10 years, and all hon. Members who have spoken so far have drawn attention to that fact. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who care about the British shipping industry, I have been drawing the attention of the House to that steady decline year by year and seeking remedial action.
I wish to give the House the correct figures which I have received from the General Council of British Shipping. From the peak in 1975 of 1,614 ships of 50 million deadweight tonnes, the fleet decreased to 640 ships of 16 million deadweight tonnes at the end of September 1985. That is a decline to nearly one third. In fairness, we must take account of technological improvements because today a container ship does a great deal more work than a cargo ship used to do. That varies, depending on the route, but I am told that the displacement of the older vessel by the new is a factor of three or four. Nevertheless, that is a dramatic fall, and we should take it into account.
Despite the recognition of that decline by successive Ministers, the Government have not succeeded in arresting, let alone reversing, it. To be fair to Ministers, we must recognise that many of the factors which have been having such a corrosive effect on our fleet are worldwide in character and largely unamenable to actions by our Government acting alone. For that reason, I have been looking expectantly to the European Community to put a shipping policy package together which would halt the decline in European shipping.
Our European neighbours have also been suffering a decline in their merchant fleets, but not at the same rate as ours, and with the notable exception of Greece which distorts all EC figures. Therefore, it has been in our national interest to encourage the Commission to come forward with a shipping policy, and I welcome its initiative. However, I regret the delay, and I am not particulary satisfied with the results. Meantime—this cannot be emphasised too often—much of the British Merchant Navy has been quietly but irresistibly disappearing into the mists of history.
The Commission's analysis of the reasons for the decline in European shipping reveals no new factors of which we were previously unaware. Indeed, it follows conventional analysis, but is not necessarily the worse for that. It also follows, not surprisingly, the free trade spirit of the treaty of Rome in its basic recommendation that the Community should not abandon what we in the United Kingdom used to call an open-seas policy. It is worth reminding the House of the words used by the Commission in the document. It states:
"A move to protectionist policy would almost certainly lead to a similar policy on the part of the US and most other countries and cross-trading opportunities would be lost; whilst in the direct trades little or nothing would be gained. In the Commission's view the maintenance of a non-protectionist shipping policy is still in the best interests of the Community shipping industry."
That is fine, provided the Community acts against unfair competition, and so I looked expectantly to this report. The broad statement of Community policy leads directly

835
to the Community's need to take collective action against other countries which either follow protectionist policies or do not play to international rules.
The following paragraph of the report states:
"It will, in the Commission's view, be necessary for the Community and its Member States to be more active than in the past to counter the threat to Community interests from policies and practices adopted by other countries which make difficult or impossible the maintenance of a commercially competitive system and which consequently reduce the possibilities for profitable enterprise open to the Community's shipowners."
That is fine, but I wonder how far there is a programme for action in the document along those lines, and how far there is merely a vague recognition that there is a problem, and some day somewhere something may be done.
I then turned to the Commission's proposals against unfair pricing practices and read the analysis, which is good. Again, there is a reluctance to come to the point at issue. The report states:
"For some time now the Commission has paid particular attention—through its monitoring of specific liner trades—to the activities of state trading countries such as the USSR. The monitoring exercise, started in 1979 and covering trades between the Community to and from Central America, East Africa and the Far East, has been working very satisfactorily and has revealed that such tactics employed by state trading countries' carriers as underquoting and the creaming off of high paying cargo are causing damage to Community carriers."
The Commission recognises the problem, but then it lays down many criteria, at the end of which it states:
"If all these criteria are satisfied the Commission proposes that it should be empowered to impose a countervailing duty on the freight rate(s) in question."
We should move much more quickly to impose such countervailing duties. The sooner they are imposed, the more likely those who are causing unfair competition and unfair pricing will take remedial action.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend believe that one of the possible reasons why this report does not have more teeth is that Community members may be responsible for some of the restrictive practices and pricing policies? Consequently any action against them may have been watered down.
Sir David Price: That is certainly possible, but as I was not involved in the discussions in Brussels I cannot answer my hon. Friend. Possibly the Minister can when he replies.
Why does the idea of imposing countervailing duties apply to passenger and cruise ships? I am sure all hon. Members who follow shipping matters have had representations from British shipowners. However, I do not wish to detain the House for long, and I should like to consider the internal market, as it is called in the paper.
I wish to take up the points made by the right hon. Member for Govan and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton on cabotage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was kind enough to give me a pat on the back for raising this issue on a number of occasions. I do not think enough people are aware of the importance of coastal shipping not only to the shipping industry, but in its own right as a method of moving goods and freight around the United Kingdom. It is comfortably the second largest method after road transport. A great deal more tonne mileage is moved by coastal shipping around Britain than, I regret to say, by British Rail. I draw the attention of the House to this because it is an important matter in itself. Coastal shipping is also important, as right hon. and
836
hon. Members have already said, as a good base for our shipping industry. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been zealous in his desire to obtain access to the coast trades of other member states for British ships.
My right hon. Friend has had some success with Germany, but little success elsewhere. My right hon. Friend posed three alternatives, but I suggest a fourth. If my right hon. Friend has no collective success with the member states, then he should build on his experience with Germany and try for more bilateral arrangements. If that does not succeed, I am entirely with him on his third alternative: to close our coastlines to ships of other nations. I sense that is the general feeling of the House.
In the context of the forthcoming Budget, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a chapter in the Commission's report dealing with how the Community can properly help our seafarers. The Commission recommends tax concessions as appropriate aids to seafarers. For better accuracy, I shall quote the passage:
"The Commission would regard a favourable direct tax regime for Community seafarers as a reasonable way of helping to maintain the employment of EEC nationals on Community ships."
Obviously my right hon. Friend cannot comment on that. However, I hope that, within collective responsibility, he will make certain that my' right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes that recommendation firmly on board.
5.33 pm
Mr. Stephen Ross: I start by supporting the Secretary of State when he visits Belgium on Thursday to uphold the rights of Sealink with the Belgian Government. The Minister will be aware that I have not always said nice things about Sealink since it has been privatised, but I think this issue deserves the support of the whole House and I hope he is successful.
I spoke to Mr. James Sherwood a few days after he had acquired Sealink and I made it clear that he had the virtual control of my constituency's economy in his hands—80 per cent. of all those who go to and fro, and most of the commercial traffic. I asked Mr. Sherwood whether he could reopen the Robb-Caledon yard at Leith to build a third "ro-ro" ferry. Mr. Sherwood had already said that he intended to order another such ferry straight away to carry some 150 cars. Scottish Members will be aware that the two largest car ferries that operate from the Isle of Wight were built at the Robb-Caledon yard—they were the last to be built—and they are successful boats.
Mr. Sherwood said that I must have thought him mad and that there was no likelihood of his ordering the boat from a British shipyard. He said that the boat would probably be ordered from the far east, although it could be fitted out in Britain or possibly in Scandinavia. I am glad to say that the third ferry is being built in Britain, not at Robb-Caledon but on Humberside. At least Mr. Sherwood has discovered that he can have a ship built in this country at a price which is acceptable to him.
We have had a powerful and damning speech from the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). He is chairman of the maritime group in the House, and I support all that he has said. I thought that he was a trifle hard on the Community, for I believe the rundown in our merchant fleet would have occurred even if we had stayed outside the EEC. However, at least we now have moves

837
towards a common maritime policy. That must make sense. The General Council of British Shipping, in its brief to the debate, gives its blessing to the EEC document, and it states that it shares its support for free trade and points out the important statistic which has not been quoted in the debate, that British shipowners still earn half their income from carrying other people's trade.
The National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers claims, however, that a move to a common maritime policy will do nothing to protect or promote British flag ships. Like many others in the House and outside, I am desperately concerned at the demise of the British merchant fleet. Many statistics have already been given and I will not bore the House with more. However, I would direct Members' attention to the document "Why the ships went", which has recently been published by the British Maritime League. It should be read by all Members, as they would learn much from it. That document forecasts that, by 1987–88, we will be down to about 500 ships, and it lists the different types. I will not bore the House with them, but it is a worrying statistic.
I do not believe that hiding behind our own protective barriers will do much, if anything, to stem the tide of decline. We stand a better chance of regaining lost ground if we support the Commission's proposals but press continually for much earlier action to implement them.
Such pressure should be exerted not only in Brussels but in the United States. In fairness to the Secretary of State, he recently made a speech on this subject in Washington. I happen to have read that speech and I congratulate him on his action. I hope that the Secretary of State will be tough in Brussels. He can be pretty nasty at times and he should be as nasty as possible over there. The Secretary of State should keep his barbed comments for Brussels and be nicer to those of us on Standing Committees.
The Commission states on page 27 of the report:
"it seems to the Commission that the promotion of a competitive Community shipping industry in terms of a non-protectionist policy, which could well mean an increasing concentration on high value, high technology services, is an effective means of ensuring and possibly expanding employment of EEC nationals in the long run."
The Commission suggests that there should be more attention to training. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh, (Sir D. Price) has stated, there should be a direct tax regime to increase the chances of employment for EEC nationals on Community ships.
With the Budget a week away, I know that the Secretary of State is debarred from commenting on this, but I hope that he has been putting pressure on his former friends in the Treasury to introduce some favourable tax incentives to the Merchant Navy, the shipping industry and perhaps those people working in the industry. That would be a step forward in the attempts to assist an industry which is in crisis.
I have read the explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on the various annexes. That relating to annex 11–6 deals with the important subject of unfair pricing practices in marine transport. Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the appearance of these regulations, subject to the need to tackle unfair competition within the Community itself. I know that the Secretary of State is attempting to do that. Annex 11–5 concerns the application of EEC competition rules. It is rather more controversial and comes in for some criticism
838
from the GCBS. Such criticism is in conflict with the Government's views, and perhaps we will have some comment on that when the Minister replies.
I welcome the paragraphs in the main document on marine safety and pollution prevention. I urge that pressure be put on those countries which have not yet ratified the relevant international instruments. I represent a part of the country which is close to busy shipping lanes and has a coastline that is vulnerable to pollution. It is essential that ships passing through those waters are in sound condition—we have already taken steps in that direction—and under the control of somebody with experience and local knowledge. Several years ago, I went to Brussels with a local government delegation concerned with this subject, but nothing happened. Something has now happened, and it appears in the document. It is well itemised and I welcome all that it says.
Earlier today we received the views of Trinity House on the future of marine pilotage—a subject that the Select Committee on Transport considered last summer and reported on in July. I gather that legislation on the subject is probably due next Session. We made some recommendations about safety standards, compulsory pilotage and the manning of pilot boats, all of which are dealt with in the document. We found that Trinity House is held in high respect on the continent of Europe. It must have a major role to play in the future of coastal maritime affairs.
The motion accords with my thinking and that of my colleagues. If the motion is divided on—I would regret that—I shall vote with the Government.
5.40 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I endorse what he said about pollution. Many members of the Community have a Mediterranean coastline and a large role to play in combating pollution there.
I warmly welcome the Government's thrust towards this document — "Progress Towards a Common Transport Policy". I welcome anything that helps to remove internal barriers to trade in the EC. The proposals on cabotage are important. I do not support retaliation. Threatening to put up our shutters if we cannot get agreement does not help, but it must be said that, unless we can get the support of our European partners, we cannot rule out such action. We have strength in Europe. If we cannot get a common policy, we must protect our own interests, especially if we are faced with competition from non-United Kingdom vessels which receive fiscal support and other favourable conditions. I have in mind the fierce competition that offshore support vessels experience in the North sea. Many offshore support vessels are laid up primarily because of unfair competition from other countries.
One of the most serious problems facing our maritirne fleet arises from the fact that, apart from their support. for the Commission's proposal, the Government do not have a policy for the merchant marine. It is questionable whether the Government sincerely want a merchant fleet. Of course, they will pay lip service to the objective of a British merchant fleet, but they have shown no practical support for it.
I agree with ny right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) who, in an excellent speech,

839
called for a single Minister to get to grips with the British merchant fleet's problem and to formulate policies and promote them here and in the country. With the decline of the British merchant fleet, we are witnessing flagging out. A shipowner does not flag out from the British flag lightly, whether it be British Petroleum or a small owner. He will flag out for the simple reason that he can operate his ships more commercialy if he has the benefit of such things as lower crew costs and lower registration charges. If he finds it financially worthwhile to flag out, I see no reason why he should do so.
Mr. Ridley: Surely my hon. Friend means he should not do so.
Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend is correct, but he will appreciate that the converse applies. If my right hon. Friend wants shipowners to flag in, he has only to make the prospect attractive. A little arithmetic shows that that would not be an expensive operation. When I made inquiries of the Department of Transport about how much the nation earns from British-owned and flagged vessels, the answer was not very much. I found it slightly surprising that the Department could not give a precise figure, but it reckoned that taxation revenue from British flagged ships amounted to about £20 million a year. That is a drop in the ocean for the Chancellor.
I hesitate to speak of capital allowances because the Government have just scrapped them, but if we could introduce disguised capital allowances and call them assistance to the British merchant fleet and they cost £20 million, and many ships flagged back in because it was financially attractive to do so, the benefit to the country would be immense. Crews would be employed and the many service industries in the City of London which rely on shipping would be helped. The service industries are to be found in the City of London for primarily historic reasons. The growth in world shipping occurred when London was the centre of world shipping. If London is no longer regarded as the centre of world shipping, the service industries, which bring in about £4 billion a year to the country—that should be contrasted with the £20 million—will simply drift away. It will become attractive to conduct arbitrations in New York or Geneva, because that is where the shipowners are. The chartered surveyors and engineers will wander off because there will be no good reason for remaining in London.
With the price of oil dropping, there will clearly be more trade in oil. The many oil tankers that have been laid up in the Norwegian fjords are being pulled out. That stimulus to trade—it might have been Sheikh Yamani who did it—shows how a little injection of enthusiasm to world trade can promote activity.
Many hon. Members have mentioned defence, but it was noticeably absent from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech. I do not blame him for that, as he is presenting proposals for a Common Market policy, but he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have often said that we can still mount a Falklands operation. However, 50 per cent. of the ships that were used in the Falklands operation have been sold or are no longer available. We have had several NATO exercises recently. A couple of years ago we had operation Lionheart and just
840
a few weeks ago we had a NATO exercise off Norway. On both occasions we had to charter Danish vessels to move British troops and stores.
Mr. Ridley: Where a ship that is chartered for military exercises comes from depends on what ships are available and whether they can be more gainfully engaged, because, for the military exercise, it is a one-off charter. The picture is therefore more encouraging than my hon. Friend thinks, because British ships suitable for the purpose were engaged on contracts elsewhere. Only underused Danish tonnage was available. That means that our ships were on more profitable business.
Mr. Ottaway: I think that proves my point. If ships are gainfully employed on commercial operations elsewhere, why does my right hon. Friend think they will suddenly be available in moments of crisis of which he has no notice?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend should know that we can requisition tonnage in times of tension or war on a wide scale. We would most certainly do that.
Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend says that we can requisition tonnage. Of course, much of the tonnage to which he refers is now flagged out. It is well established that he can requisition ships under, for example, the flag of Bermuda. However, he will have to find out where a ship is, pull it back, get rid of the crew and get British certificated officers on board, if there are any. He might then be able to start. The fact that the crisis may be over by that time is neither here nor there.
There is another aspect. A British-owned vessel may be flagged out under the Liberian flag. As yet, nobody has tried to requisition a British-owned vessel under non-British colonial ownership or flag. I do not think that it will be appropriate to test whether we can requisition a British-owned vessel under Liberian or Panamanian flags in the courts at a time of crisis. The crisis will be over by the time the courts decide.
The other day I was talking to a British shipowner who flagged out under the Bermudan flag because he found it more financially attractive to do so. He is now despairing. He wanted to get British business, he wanted to take things to the Falklands, but he found that other vessels were being chartered. There was no positive encouragement for him to keep his vessels available for use by the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Transport. I am not saying that he should rely solely upon business from the Government, but if there is not a system of priority chartering of British-flagged vessels for Government use, there is no encouragement for a shipowner to keep his ship on stand-by for use in times of crisis.
This is the greatest nation on earth, and it was built upon a history of maritime affairs. I believe that we should turn the corner in our lack of policy. We should start to formulate a policy. I think that the report we are debating and the European aspect is welcome. We have the European side sorted out. We must now get our own national fleet sorted out.
5.52 pm
Mr. Michael Cocks: I shall be brief because many of the points I wish to raise have already been adequately covered on both sides of the House. I wish to say that it is a travesty that we are here pleading for the remnants of the Merchant Navy of this country. Those of

841
us who were brought up on Jane's Fighting Ships and the gallantry of the Merchant Navy seamen during the war find this a bitter issue to face. Bristol, which I still represent, has a very long maritime tradition and has adapted to the times—the shifting from the port in the heart of the city to the out-port of Avonmouth and latterly constructing west dock.
Our debate on these regulations stems from the loss of sovereignty which took place when we joined the EEC. It is interesting that I speak shortly after the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) because when we had our historic debate on the principle of entry he and I were here late at night and I followed shortly after him then. We both expressed reservations about the course which was to be followed. I think that the right hon. Gentleman abstained whereas I voted against it, but we were both extremely unhappy.
One of the arguments which was put forward at that time was that we should have been in at the start of the Common Market, we should have joined when it was formed and that inevitably there was a price to be paid for our late entry. However, it seems to me that we have the worst of all possible worlds. We are told that we have to pay a heavy price for not being in on the initial negotiations on entry and now we are told that some of the latest entrants into the Community are causing us some of the greatest problems. I refer particularly to what was mentioned earlier—cabotage. If we look at the countries which are said to be causing difficulties—Spain, Italy and Greece -- only Italy is a founder member of the European Community. Spain and Greece are latecomers. However, if I may use a slang phrase, they seem to be getting away with it and we seem to be pig in the middle all the time.
On Second Reading of the Bill dealing with the accession of Spain and Portugal I raised an anxiety in my own area about the bottling at source of sherry, port and different wines. I received an assurance from the Minister. However, on reflection it seems to me that we are the only country which seems scrupulously to observe all the rules and regulations within the Community. It also appears that, of all the countries in the EEC, we have pursued the most non-protectionist policy in regard to shipping and yet have suffered the greatest comparative decline. Therefore, on behalf of those of us who are atheistic or agnostic about the EEC, I urge on the Government the need to be strong about this matter.
Some years ago, in the early 1970s, I went on a delegation to the United Nations. Despite my reservations about the EEC, it seemed that one of the great benefits of joining the Community was the possibility of presenting a cohesive voice speaking as one from this great bloc, which the right hon. Member for Taunton mentioned. The size of its population and the sheer bulk of its trade would carry more weight than any of the individual members. It is true that at last some remnants of the shipping policy are coming forward but we wish it had been sooner and more cohesive. Unfortunately, there is now a tendency to talk about economic boycotts and restrictions by countries to enforce political policies and if the EEC speaks as one on this it is in a stronger position. Regrettably, we find that the rules are flouted with apparent impunity.
I should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway). I find it appalling that if we had a problem such as the Falklands dispute we would be scratching around to get the ships
842
together with which to carry the men, materials and supplies. In his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the Secretary of State said that British ships were being used to better advantage. I do not know of any better advantage to which ships can be put than taking British military and civil supplies to an area where we are in a state of conflict. If something is reduced to that sort of commercial equation, I wonder how we define the national interest.
It seems to me that during the first Saturday debate on the Falklands crisis there was a mood in the House which recognised that we had reached a very poor pass as a nation if we were scratching about to service such an operation. I hope that when the Secretary of State discusses the regulations in the Community he will try to get more cohesion and will try to press on our partners there the need to use our economic strength to much greater advantage. I did not want us to go into the Community to join a rich man's club but, in a world with such bickering and backbiting, and people not playing along, he must try to get them together. I wish him well in his efforts, but I hope that we can get more cohesion and more economic strength and do our best to keep our merchant shipping fleet going.
6 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I agree with the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) that we cannot wait much longer for a maritime policy. We cannot wait until the EC gets around to it. His points are reinforced by the fact that not long ago we had a debate on shipbuilding, in which hon. Members commented about the decline in the merchant fleet and were answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Later, in a debate on defence, the right hon. Member for Taunton referred to the merchant fleet as the fourth arm of defence and expressed concern about the decline in it. That debate was answered by the Secretary of State for Defence. Today, we are discussing shipping in a debate on an EC document on transport, which will be answered by the Secretary of State for Transport. That alone points to the need for a maritime policy of which a Minister is specifically in control.
In 1981, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry dealt with shipping and shipbuilding, and in its report recommended that there should be a co-ordinated maritime policy for Great Britain. Unfortunately, no one has taken any notice, and right hon. and hon. Members since then have been imploring the Government to do something about the decline, not only in the merchant fleet but in the shipbuilding industry.
The explanatory memorandum on the document says:
"These proposals touch on the whole range of issues which affect shipowners; ports policy; maritime research; the operation of technical social, safety and environmental rules and standards; the problem of maritime fraud; the provision of navigational aids within the European waters; and so forth."
However, it does not mention the fact that if we want a fleet we have to build and maintain it. It does not mention the fact that for years the EEC has been talking about a scrap and build policy. Such a policy was first discussed in the EEC in 1977, was brought back in 1979, but is still being discussed. Such a policy would help the merchant fleets, but two other nations are putting a block on the proposals.
Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about the decline in the United Kingdom fleet from over 1,600 ships and 50 million deadweight tonnes to 640 ships and 16

843
million deadweight tonns. Our shipping industry has declined—50,000 seafarers have lost their jobs, and, what is more, the composition of the fleet leaves much to be desired. For example, 42·7 per cent. of our ships are over 10 years old, 13·7 per cent. are over 15 years old and 5·1 per cent. are over 20 years old. This compares with Denmark, France, Spain, Germany and Norway who have, respectively, 77 per cent., 73 per cent., 71 per cent., 69 per cent. and 68 per cent. of their vessels less than 10 years old. Such a large loss of ships in the United Kingdom fleet and the age of the remaining ships leave much to be desired.
We are talking not about a few thousand seafarers and a few ships but about the possible effects on 300,000 people employed in shipping. One of the problems is that we have always fought by the Marquess of Queensberry rules while everybody else has been involved in all-in wrestling. We know that Korea will carry its exports in ships under the Korean flag and that France will import oil only in French oil tankers. United Kingdom shipowners have had to contend with such practices for a long time.
The decline in the merchant fleet is reflected in the way that the British shipbuilding industry has declined. When the shipbuilding industry was nationalised in June 1977, 87,000 men were working in the industry. This year, British Shipbuilders is employing 10,000 men, albeit some have been transferred to the privatised warship yards. Next year, we have been told that there are no orders for merchant shipping and that that number will fall to 4,000 men.
It has already been said that if Galtieri were to invade the Falklands again today, we would not be able to put out a task force because we would not have the merchant ships available that we once had. In the 1930s, we also had no maritime policy. I can recall the rationalisation of those years. There was a shipbuilding security limit, and merchant bankers, shipbuilders and shipowners felt that there was over-capacity and used to go around buying up shipyards and closing them, and putting an embargo on the building of ships. In 1934, they came to the town where I was born and bred and closed down the Palmers Jarrow shipyard, one of the biggest enterprises in the world. Iron ore would come in and go out as a complete ship on the river Tyne. That yard was closed through shortsightedness and rationalisation, and in 1939 we could not get enough shipbuilders to build and repair our ships for the war. This is one of the dangers that we face, unless something is done immediately by the Government to try to stop the decline in the merchant fleet and the shipbuilding industry.
The Government's argument is that market forces should operate in this sector, but look what happened in Sweden. The last merchant shipbuilding yard there closed a matter of months ago and that country was one of the biggest merchant shipping builders in Europe only a few years ago.
Flagging out is another important factor in what is happening in the shipping industry at the moment. It affects people who sail the ships, and I have a letter from the deputy general-secretary of NUMAST, who was concerned at BP's decision to flag out its ships. He says:
"If its flag-out moves are allowed to follow the pattern of others in recent years we can confidently predict that within the very near future;

—firstly the United Kingdom ratings will be replaced;

—then the junior officer's jobs will be handed to Filippino or
844
others;

—very shortly thereafter most of the United Kingdom senior officers will go;

—after a further period the United Kingdom Master and Chief Engineer will be replaced".

That is the effect of BP's decision, and some 1,700 jobs for British seafarers will be lost for ever.
The Minister should be pressing Europe and asking it what it is doing about the scrap and build scheme. If it does not soon introduce a scheme, we should unilaterally adopt one ourselves. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) about tax concessions. I think that such concessions are essential and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make some provision next week in that direction. However, I believe that tax concessions or tax incentives should go only to shipowners who build ships in this country. It is important that any concessions should go to British shipowners.
6.10 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: I would have liked to discuss two issues in relation to the documents that we are discussing tonight—the ports policy in connection with competition imports and the, navigational assistance to shipping in European waters. In view of the constraints on time however, I will concentrate my comments on navigational assistance to shipping in European waters.
As the House Knows, and the documents state, a research programme was set up in 1981 named "COST 301." The purpose of the research programme was to investigate the safety measures for shipping in European waters. I make that point as a background to my comments about navigational assistance.
Navigational assistance is inextricably linked to pilotage, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and in the report submitted today Trinity House and the pilotage commission. As the Secretary of State will know, over the years there have Been attempts to harmonise the pilotage arrangements in ports in this country with the pilotage arrangements in European ports. My constituency covers the River Forth and the port of Grangemouth and I have strongly opposed any attempt to harmonise pilotage arrangements in European ports with those in ports on the River Forth in Scotland.
I am making a brief constituency point because there are many risks for shipping in the port of Grangemouth and the narrow navigational channel leading to it. When the Secretary of State discusses navigational assistance to shipping in European waters, he must take account of the pilotage arrangements. It is not practicable to harmonise pilotage arrangements in the River Forth with those in European ports because there are extreme hazards in that narrow navigational channel.
Before I describe those hazards, I should like to draw to the Secretary of State's attention the proposals from Europe that vessels under a certain tonnage should be able to enter ports without the need for pilotage. I am not so naive as to believe that pilots in this country do not peddle their own interests. There are pilots in my constituency and I art not taken in by the fact that many of them have come to see me at my constituency surgeries to tell me about the dangers on the River Forth. I can see both sides of the argument, and I am trying to be fair.
However, it is simply not on to expect vessels under a certain tonnage to come into a highly volatile port like

845
Grangemouth without pilotage. The heart of the petrochemical industry is located at Grangemouth. The new Braefoot bay terminal, which is the export point for the Shell-Esso liquid gas and petroleum plant which was built at Mossmorran, is located on the navigational channel leading to the port of Grangemouth. Fairly substantial ships are loaded with highly volatile liquid chemicals for export on the edge of that narrow navigational channel. Further up the channel is the Hound point terminal, which is the other end of the North sea oil industry. Tankers of a fairly substantial tonnage are loaded with oil for export there on the edge of that narrow channel. The royal naval dockyard at Rosyth, which is a nuclear refitting base, is also on the edge of that narrow channel.
I must put it on the record that it would be highly dangerous for my constituents in Bo'ness and Grangemouth and in all the other towns that skirt the River Forth if vessels of any size were allowed to travel that narrow channel without an experienced pilot on board.
Although I have made these comments briefly, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider them in his discussions on the draft regulations and in his consideration of the legislation which we are told by Trinity House today is likely to be introduced in the next Session. I hope that, in finalising these regulations and in drafting the legislation to which Trinity House has referred, the Secretary of State will take account of the markets and warnings that I have given on behalf of my constituents.
The safety of those who sail the seas is paramount in shipping; but of equal importance is the safety of those who live in the towns and villages that skirt the shores. I hope that I have said enough to sound a warning to the Secretary of State about the dangers to my constituency and the other small towns on the River Forth if pilotage were abolished.
6.16 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I thank the hon. member for Falkirk, East (Mr Ewing) for keeping to one point and allowing me to speak.
The fact that a massive bureaucracy such as the Common Market has at long last organised a common policy and written a document demonstrates how serious is the decline of the merchant fleet generally, and of the merchant fleet in this country in particular. Now that the policy has been produced, will it actually work? The answer to that depends on whether the policy has teeth.
Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned that in 1975 we had the largest number of ships and the greatest tonnage. We should, however, also note that we had the largest number of shipping bankruptcies in that year. With or without our membership of the Community, the recession, the change from our major markets being deep-sea markets to being short or near-sea markets, the change to larger and more efficient ships and the change that North sea oil has brought about, there would have been a decline in the number of British ships and British tonnage.
The question is not how we are going to reverse that decline but how we are going to halt it. I am not so optimistic as to believe that we can return to the dead weight tonnages of 1975.
I return to the point that I made about the teeth in this EEC directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) was quite scathing about the directive's lack
846
of penalties. We must penalise the dumping of shipping on to the market at freight rates which bear no relation to their economic costs. Within the Community we need to organise better cabotage arrangements. I am delighted that the Government are at long last waking up to the reality that a shipping policy is essential for this country. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and other Members in this House and in the other place have made sure that the Government are beginning to understand how important a coherent shipping policy is to this country.
It has sometimes been suggested that artificially low freight rates are good for this country, as they help our exports. They may be in our short-term interests, but one must consider who is offering these artificially low rates. One would then recognise that those rates are not in our long-term interests.
There are already, and there will increasingly be, powerful trading blocs—the United States, the Comecon countries, south-east Asia, with Japan and later China leading, and Europe. For a trading bloc to be effective, the internal market must be large enough to provide the economies of scale that would make it internationally competitive. Therefore, internally we need unselfishness and co-operation. Internally, Britain has been gentlemanly but other countries, within the Common Market and outside it, have been exceedingly self-centred. We have been losing out. I hope that these regulations are but the first step towards ensuring that the internal market works effectively and works for and not against us. I hope that Britain as a major market can work in its own interests on an international scale.
6.20 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: The debate has shown the House at its very best, because we do not often get almost complete unanimity on a subject. Every hon. Member is concerned about this subject, and that is the reason for the consensus.
When I left the Merchant Navy some 22 years ago. Britain's merchant fleet was one of the largest in the world. In every port in every country the red duster could be seen flying as a symbol of Britain's trading links and civil naval power. However, 22 years on, the picture is very different. It is almost beyond belief that this island nation, with its maritime history, has only 640 merchant ships flying the red ensign. This is profoundly worrying to the sea-going trade unions, to the General Council of British Shipping, to me and to almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate. I hope that the Secretary of State is seized of that fact.
The General Council of British Shipping has estimated that, if the present rate of decline continues, the British trading fleet will be reduced to between 200 and 400 vessels by 1990. The net loss of qualified seafarers is likely to continue at a rate of 5,000 a year. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has referred to the acceleration in the decline in the past decade in the number of United Kingdom registered ships. As the armed forces do not maintain enough vessels in their own right, clearly it is to the advantage of the United Kingdom that we have a merchant marine which can support the Royal Navy in difficult times.
The sectors most hard hit have been the cargo liners, the bulk carriers and the tankers. In the past 10 years, more than 30 million deadweight tonnes have been lost. In the

847
first nine months of 1984, more than 2 million deadweight tonnes were lost. Another two or three years of losses at that rate and, according to most experts, the fleet will be reduced substantially to about 12 million deadweight tonnes. The number of deadweight tonnes is perhaps more significant than the reduction in the number of ships.
The General Council of British Shipping and the unions argue that, in the next five years, there is likely to be an acute shortage of trained manpower in the industry. This will make it even more difficult for us to meet the demands for a defence capability. I and many other people believe that we will not be able to mount a Falklands-like campaign again. I have argued before about this matter with the Minister of State, Department of Transport. He has said that, if there is a conflict, Britain will have the right to reclaim those ships that have been flagged out. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) say that that may be possible if the ships sail under the Bermudan flag, but it may be more difficult if they sail under the Liberian flag. That is one difficulty. Another difficulty is that, even if we get those ships back to help the Royal Navy in times of conflict and difficulty, we would not get the crews back. Foreign crews are hardly likely to rush to participate in an imperialistic war on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Given that scenario, there is an overwhelming case for greater co-ordination between Government and industry. If there is a defence rationale in terms of the size and adaptability of the merchant fleet, there is obviously a case for setting a level below which, in the national interest, the fleet should not fall. However, to my knowledge, no such planning and co-ordination is taking place.
Britain has moved from the position in the 1950s when she had the largest merchant fleet, the second largest Navy, a large fishing industry and a large shipbuilding industry. This rapid decline is tragic. If in the future we are engaged in a military conflict, there will be problems in finding the men to man the ships required, even if ships sailing under other flags can be obtained. The trained officers and men to man them are unlikely to be available, unless steps are taken now to create a Merchant Navy reserve. In 1939, there were 159,000 seamen in Britain's merchant fleet; today, there are fewer than 40,000. It is against the background of that rapid and accelerating decline that we should judge these proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) outlined the difficulties they saw in the regulations. I echo their remarks. The European Community depends to a large extent on its merchant shipping for its economic and social advance. With about one third of the world's seaborne imports and one seventh of the world's seaborne exports, shipping is vital for the Community. Traditionally, member states have carried a large proportion of their own trade in national flag vessels and some have been particularly important carriers of trade between other countries. Merchant shipping makes an enormous contribution to the Community's economy. It is a lifeline for imports and exports, it helps to earn foreign currency and it benefits the balance of payments. It is a customer of Community services, such as shipbuilding, steel and other related products. It is clear beyond doubt,
848
therefore, that the Community's merchant marine is important on many fronts. If there is a further decline, the problems will continue.
I do not have a great deal of time in which to go into great depth about the regulations. I hope that the House will forgive me. I should like to make a number of points because it is important for the Secretary of State to respond to hon. Members' suggestions.
On flags of convenience, the Commission's analysis and the proposed measures have ignored the fact that shipping differs from other industries because of the rights and obligations which flow from registration. A ship represents a particularly mobile piece of its flag state inasmuch as the flag state's jurisdiction extends to the ship; yet it represents also a particularly mobile form of capital, the ownership of which can change quickly and can be almost totally obscured.
The Commission refers to "flagging out" as a response to the loss of a competitive advantage for member states' fleets. It argues that flagging out is a means used increasingly by EEC owners to remain competitive in world shipping markets and at the same time to retain control of their operations. Yet the Commission completely fails to acknowledge that it is the very existence of flags of convenience which makes it difficult for traditional ship operators to remain competitive.
As long as there is a mechanism to which owners can resort for avoiding social, safety and financial obligations, it will be difficult for any responsible owner to remain competitive. Furthermore, the Commission's statement that open registry shipping fosters the operation of highly competitive shipping services is an absurd justification for a system which has been set up primarily to flout attempts to impose controls at national or international level on safety, crewing and other aspects of seagoing activity. It is the very existence of flags of convenience that causes some of the major problems in world shipping today. The European Community should do something about it quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North drew attention to annex II.2. A more positive approach to the question of cabotage would be the introduction of EEC wide cabotage, allowing member states to restrict participation in their coastal trade to their own flag or to those EEC flags which removed restrictions. That reciprocity would mean that we could enter the waters of other countries and they could enter our waters. If we cannot have reciprocity, it is not in our interest to continue the dialogue with the European Community. The chairman of the transportation committee in the European Assembly, a Greek whose name I cannot pronounce, said that we are talking about a free market approach but that we must take into account the differences which exist between member states. I am sure that the Greek Government and Greek shipping and transport Ministers are doing that. That is where we will probably find the most difficulty.
My hon. Friend outlined specific proposals that would help to stop the decline of Britain's merchant fleet. Other hon. Members, notably the right hon. Member for Taunton and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), both of whom have had a high profile on the issue for many years and who are concerned about the way in which our merchant fleet has declined, have expressed concern and have asked the Secretary of State to do something positive.

849
I want to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North by urging the Secretary of State to read the document prepared by the International Transport Federation entitled "Towards a Common Maritime Transport Policy". That is a very good document, which points to sensible solutions to the problem. If the Secretary of State has not read that document, I ask him to do so because it makes a major contribution on the subject.
The maritime unions have consistently, realistically and accurately underlined the problems of the decline in their industry. They have also consistently, realistically and accurately put forward soundly based solutions for its survival. I want to do the same. The International Transport Federation, in its submission to the European Community, made proposals which could help. I shall refer to six of them.
Instead of opposing cargo-sharing arrangements the Commission should tackle the orderly development of cargo movements. The relationship between shipbuilding and other industries, such as steel, should be examined and an integrated approach should be adopted. A European scrap and build policy should be introduced with the aim of getting rid of substandard ships and building new ships in European shipyards to the highest standards and with the most advanced technical features. The capital side of shipping should be examined to see how the financing of Community shipping could meet the competitive advantages offered in non-Community shipyards and to non-Community owners, with particular reference to far east shipyards and shipowners. The fiscal regimes of flags of convenience countries should be considered, with a view to eliminating the unfair advantages which arise from the way in which capital and profits are created.
Most importantly for seamen, the social aspects of seafarers' employment should be examined with particular reference to hours of work and pressure to reduce crews. Strict regulations exist for the hours of work of other transport workers, such as lorry drivers, but the Commission has ignored the lack of regulation in shipping and the dangers which excessive working time poses to the health and safety of seafarers, vessels and the environment. Regulations on minimum rest periods, leave and time off should be introduced. There are other suggestions in that document which the Secretary of State might adopt.
As for my own suggestions, there is an overwhelmingly urgent need, as has been said on both sides of the House, for the appointment of a Cabinet Minister responsible for co-ordinating maritime policy. It is time the Government decided upon the level at which the Merchant Navy should be maintained. In his forthcoming Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer should introduce a tax regime to help positively British shipowners to purchase ships from British yards. The trade unions and the shipping industry have been telling him that. The Government need to see shipping and shipbuilding as being more interdependent. Britain needs an integrated maritime policy. The first plank of such a policy should be the reservation of coastal trade and offshore supplies, combining the ordering, designing, building, operating, manning and repairing of ships for the United Kingdom within the United Kingdom.
As in so many other industries in Britain today, we are approaching five minutes to midnight. Shipping is crucial to this island nation. British shipping has served the nation well. British seamen have served the nation well in peace
850
and war. It is now up to the Government to show them and the nation that they have a policy which will stop the terminal decline of the industry.
6.36 pm
Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer as many of the points raised in this excellent debate as time allows.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who has apologised for not being here, asked about the trouble we are having with Belgium and about the type of order that might be made. The hon. Gentleman was correct. Section 14 orders, under the normal procedure, require the approval of the House before action is taken. That is the type of order upon which I have consulted. Section 15 also allows action in advance of approval. We could use such an order if it was necessary but, as I have already said, I hope it will not be.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) made considerable contributions about pilotage. I hope they will forgive me if I leave that to another occasion. The Government wish to legislate on it at the earliest opportunity and it does not fit in with the rest of the debate, although I listened with care and interest to what the hon. Gentlemen said.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned the serious problem of maritime fraud, although I do not think it is responsible for all the sinkings that he listed round the world. Solutions will only be reached through international co-operation. I assure the House that no nation is playing a bigger part in the discussions in the International Maritime Organisation and under the auspices of the United Nations than we are in trying to make progress on that important and dangerous subject.
Many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), referred at length to shipbuilding. I do not think we should discuss that matter now. If we are to help the United Kingdom shipping industry we must consider its problems in isolation and not seek to tie it to, say, the supply of ships.
Mr. Milian: Why should we look at the shipping industry in isolation? Every hon. Member who has spoken today has said that it should be looked at in the context of a general maritime policy. The trouble is that we have been looking at it in isolation.
Mr. Ridley: I do not agree. It is right that the sources of purchase of transport equipment, whether for aeroplanes ships, buses, trains or cars, should be considered separately from the environment in which those transport industries operate.
There were pleas that the alleged six Ministers who deal with shipping in Britain should be rolled into one. I hate to have to say that that dreaded responsibility already falls on me and on my noble friend Lord Caithness, who has listened to much of the debate. Although I hesitate to expose myself to the wrath of the House more than I need, I cannot claim that other Ministers share that responsibility.
Let me come to the problems of the merchant fleet on the wider canvas and deal with many of the points that have been made. We take seriously the cries for help which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that the industry has put forward. Much of what we are in the

851
course of doing will prove to be much more helpful than perhaps hon. Members have given us credit for. Moreover, it is a difficult time for me to debate this because we are a week from the Budget and I cannot possibly give a hint, even if I were able to do so, of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. Much of the argument today has been about fiscal matters which cannot be pursued at this difficult time in the calendar of the House.
Let me say what the Commission's proposals will do to assist the decline in tonnage in the United Kingdom register. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) said that the regulations were too late and in a way I agree with him. I wish that they had come forward much earlier. But it is perhaps of some significance that they have been brought forward, debated and more or less agreed, quicker than any regulations that I can recall in the Community's existence. That is a measure of the urgency and importance with which the Community views the matter.
The regulations will be of great importance for liner shipping which, although it accounts for only 13 per cent. of the tonnage on the United Kingdom register, earns 43 per cent. of the revenue of our total fleet. Let me pay tribute to the tremendous performance that our liner companies are putting up in the face of intense competition and, in many trades, gross over-tonnaging.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked about Taiwan and Japan. There is no evidence as far as I know that the Taiwanese and Japanese liner trades are subsidised at all. However, he is right to say that the United States' lines are subsidised to a publicly known degree which can be ascertained. Secondly, if we can sort out cabotage, an EC policy will be of great benefit to our short sea traders and cruise operators. That underlines the difficulty of choice before us in the EC Shipping Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) discussed cabotage. The GCBS believes that to open the European trades to our ships would be of far greater value than to close British trade to their ships, because the market is much greater than that which would be secured for us. I agree that 10 years is far too long to keep those trades closed to us. We have already pressed for a two or three year period at the utmost and I shall continue to press for the shortest period possible. However, the difficulty is that 12 countries must now agree to any regulation of this sort and we may well have to reconsider the options that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Sayeed: If we cannot speedily reach agreement on cabotage on a Community-wide basis, will my right hon. Friend take steps to agree cabotage arrangements on a bilateral basis with Community members?
Mr. Ridley: We already have bilateral cabotage agreements with five member states. I gave the options earlier as to how we might pursue this matter and I should not like to decide which options we shall eventually have to take.
I come now to the decline of the fleet and the pressures that have led to the substantial reduction in the size of the United Kingdom fleet over the past 10 years, both through outright sales and transfer to overseas registers of vessels
852
under United Kingdom beneficial ownership. We are not alone in this. The fleets of virtually every traditional maritime nation have declined in recent years. We must not exaggerate as some hon. Members did today.
The extent of the decline depends on what base year is used. All hon. Members seem to choose 1975. That was an all-time peak for the United Kingdom at an unstable level brought about by excessive subsidy before that period. That in turn shows the danger of excessive subsidy in shipbuilding. The decline from the level of the 1960s is far less marked. If United Kingdom beneficially owned overseas registered shipping—flagged out to foreign registries—is taken into account, the reduction in deadweight tonnage is small—only about 5 per cent. Therefore, there has been some exaggeration of the decline.
Flagging out has been a feature of the debate. We are not the only nation to flag out. Twenty-three per cent. of the Norwegian fleet, 26 per cent. of the Japanese fleet, 36 per cent. of the Greek fleet and 64 per cent. of the United States fleet sails under foreign flags. The United Kingdom figure is 21 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) mentioned the fact that we carry only 20 per cent. of trade from the United Kingdom. The figures show that we carry 22 per cent. of our imports and our partners carry 19 per cent. by weight. Of our exports we carry 24 per cent. and our partners carry 13 per cent. The rest of our trade is carried by cross traders and those cross trades are of immense importance to our fleet. Over 40 per cent. of the earnings of British shipowners comes from the cross trades. If we were to make a move which sought to deny the openness of cross trade to the world's free market fleets, we would do more damage than in any other way that we could to our interests. Therefore, that is not such a strong point as my right hon. Friend suggested.
Furthermore, those are aggregate figures for the decline in tonnage which cover different sectors of the industry—tankers, dry bulk cargoes, cargo liners, ferries, cruise vessels, and short sea and offshore support vessels. None of those is a privileged market—far from it. But their opportunities and prospects differ considerably. That is one reason why broad speculations about the future size of the fleet, while it may be striking and frightening, are not particularly meaningful. One must get down to the detail.
The National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers has made a crude estimate that numbers in the fleet could fall by half this year. That takes no account of the different prospects for the different sectors of the fleet. On the other hand, the GCBS has recently suggested that numbers might fall to 400 or 500 by 1990.
Mr. Stott: Three hundred to 400.
Mr. Ridley: No, according to the GCBS it is 400 to 500. Neither of those figures allows for the increasing amount of shipping beneficially owned in the United Kingdom but registered overseas.
The surprising and striking omission from the debate has been how few hon. Members have referred to the matter of BP Shipping. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) and the hon. Member for Jarrow did so, but only in passing. As the House knows, the company is handing over manning responsibility for its bulk tanker fleet to three agencies based outside

853
the United Kingdom. The seagoing staff are being offered early retirement and redundancy terms by BP Shipping and jobs by the agencies. The plan involves the transfer of the ships to the Bermudan register. The company reckons to save £12 million a year by doing this. It is in the order, I believe, of £300,000 per ship per year in running costs alone.
I do not welcome the move, I do not welcome such transfers, but I must make it clear to the House that I have no power to stop any company moving the place of registration of its ships; nor would it be possible for the House to legislate to take such power because any company is free to establish its place of bnsiness and to register its ships in any country that it wishes.
BP's move illustrates the critical importance of the underlying factors of fiscal and crew cost advantage for the particular sorts of shipping involved. Overseas registers are here to stay—they will not go away—and we must seek to make the best use of such shipping for our economic benefit and defence planning as we can. The saving of £300,000 a ship will probably enable BP to run its fleet as an economic viable entity.
It depends to some extent—and this is the important point I wish to put to the House—on whether the overseas registry is British, as in the case of Bermuda, or foreign. This is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham., North referred. Vessels registered in Bermuda fly the red ensign. They are subject to the safety controls of the Bermudan registry which is ultimately controlled by us. The question of safety was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. We can control the safety provisions in that registry in the way that I have described, so that point is covered.
The United Kingdom powers to requisition ships apply to the Bermudan registry or to any other dependent territory registry. The constraints of nationality of certain officers on merchant vessels registered in dependent territories are very similar to those in the United Kingdom. This is the point mentioned by the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Jarrow. There is no difference in the crewing requirements for the British registry and for the Bermudan registry. That enables us to maintain, and perhaps even with some negotiation to increase, the British crewing proportion. Indeed, in terms of the decline of the United Kingdom fleet and in terms of policy, in my opinion we should be talking about ships on the United Kingdom and the dependent registers together. In discussions with the United Kingdom shipowners, this is one of the matters that I intend to raise about their foreign registered ships and the defence needs of the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members have raised other general points about the availability of ships and crews to meet defence needs. With regard to ships, the House probably knows that the studies carried out for us by consultants last year indicate that generally adequate numbers of suitable ships are, and should continue to be, available to meet the needs of the Ministry of Defence in time of tension and of war.
I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that we have no doubt of our capability to mount a similar campaign to the Falklands campaign with the necessary attendant commercial merchant ships which were used on that occasion if the need should arise. There is no doubt whatever about that.
Mr. Ewing: Is that not unpatriotic?
Mr. Ridley: I think it is very unpatriotic of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we cannot. I assure him that we can.
Sir Edward du Cann: My right hon. Friend surely must agree that it is the duty of all of us in the House to speak the truth as we see it. With the greatest of respect to his view, he has endeavoured to answer the debate by saying that the picture is by no means as black as many of us fear. In my opinion, there are answers to the points that he made. In my opinion, for what it is worth, the picture is indeed very much as black as we have suggested, and we have a duty, if we think that there are dangers in matters of defence, to state that plainly in the House, and there is nothing unpatriotic in doing so.
Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is perfectly justified in seeking to say that, but to say that we do not have an adequate merchant marine to mount a similar operation to the Falklands is simply not the case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that from me, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have satisfied ourselves fully on that point.
I have more than I can say in the time available about the need for resupply and the ships available in time of tension or of war. This is a responsibility of NATO. NATO would pool its ocean-going shipping. We reckon that the resources of the NATO pool would be substantial, perhaps amounting to 50 per cent. of the deadweight tonnage of the free world. That is the tonnage available to NATO if civil resupply should be necessary.
The Government have studied all these matters. They have a policy for the future of the merchant marine. In addition to what I have said, we are major participants in—
It being three hours after the motion had been entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the order [10 March].
The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 153.

Division No. 97]

[6.56 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bruinvels, Peter

Alton, David

Bryan, Sir Paul

Amess, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Ancram, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Arnold, Tom

Butcher, John

Ashby, David

Butterfill, John

Ashdown, Paddy

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carttiss, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chope, Christopher

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bendall, Vivian

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Cockeram, Eric

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Colvin, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Coombs, Simon

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cope, John

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

Couchman, James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Cranborne, Viscount

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Crouch, David

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dicks, Terry

Bright, Graham

Dorrell, Stephen

Brinton, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Dover, Den

Brooke, Hon Peter

Dunn, Robert

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Dykes, Hugh

Bruce, Malcolm

Eggar, Tim

855

Emery, Sir Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Evennett, David

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Moynihan, Hon C.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mudd, David

Fallon, Michael

Needham, Richard

Farr, Sir John

Neubert, Michael

Favell, Anthony

Newton, Tony

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Nicholls, Patrick

Fletcher, Alexander

Norris, Steven

Fookes, Miss Janet

Onslow, Cranley

Forman, Nigel

Oppenheim, Phillip

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Ottaway, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Freeman, Roger

Parris, Matthew

Freud, Clement

Pawsey, James

Galley, Roy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Penhaligon, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Gorst, John

Pollock, Alexander

Gow, Ian

Porter, Barry

Gower, Sir Raymond

Powell, William (Corby)

Greenway, Harry

Powley, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Price, Sir David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Hampson, Dr Keith

Rathbone, Tim

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Renton, Tim

Harris, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Harvey, Robert

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Haselhurst, Alan

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hayward, Robert

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Heddle, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hickmet, Richard

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Hicks, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Hind, Kenneth

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Rost, Peter

Holt, Richard

Rowe, Andrew

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

Ryder, Richard

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Howells, Geraint

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Irving, Charles

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jessel, Toby

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Johnston, Sir Russell

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kennedy, Charles

Shersby, Michael

Key, Robert

Silvester, Fred

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Kirkwood, Archy

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knowles, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Speller, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Spencer, Derek

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Lester, Jim

Squire, Robin

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lightbown, David

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lord, Michael

Stern, Michael

Lyell, Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maclean, David John

Sumberg, David

Maclennan, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McQuarrie, Albert

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Major, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Terlezki, Stefan

Malone, Gerald

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Maples, John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Marlow, Antony

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Mather, Carol

Thornton, Malcolm

Merchant, Piers

Thurnham, Peter

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Waddington, David

Moate, Roger

Walden, George

856

Wall, Sir Patrick

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wallace, James

Winterton, Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Wolfson, Mark

Ward, John

Woodcock, Michael

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Yeo, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Watson, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whitfield, John

Mr. Tony Durant and

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. Francis Maude.

Wilkinson, John

NOES

Abse, Leo

Gourlay, Harry

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Anderson, Donald

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Haynes, Frank

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Heffer, Eric S.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Barnett, Guy

Home Robertson, John

Barron, Kevin

Hoyle, Douglas

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bell, Stuart

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

Janner, Hon Greville

Bidwell, Sydney

John, Brynmor

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Boyes, Roland

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Lambie, David

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Lamond, James

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

Leadbitter, Ted

Buchan, Norman

Leighton, Ronald

Caborn, Richard

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Litherland, Robert

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Canavan, Dennis

McCartney, Hugh

Carter-Jones, Lewis

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McNamara, Kevin

Clarke, Thomas

McTaggart, Robert

Clay, Robert

Madden, Max

Clelland, David Gordon

Mallon, Seamus

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Marek, Dr John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cohen, Harry

Martin, Michael

Conlan, Bernard

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Maxton, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Maynard, Miss Joan

Craigen, J. M.

Meacher, Michael

Crowther, Stan

Michie, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mikardo, Ian

Cunningham, Dr John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Deakins, Eric

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Dewar, Donald

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dobson, Frank

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dormand, Jack

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Dubs, Alfred

O'Brien, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

O'Neill, Martin

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Eadie, Alex

Park, George

Eastham, Ken

Parry, Robert

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

Pavitt, Laurie

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Pendry, Tom

Ewing, Harry

Pike, Peter

Fatchett, Derek

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Faulds, Andrew

Prescott, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Redmond, Martin

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Fisher, Mark

Richardson, Ms Jo

Flannery, Martin

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Forrester, John

Robertson, George

Foster, Derek

Rogers, Allan

Foulkes, George

Rowlands, Ted

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Sheerman, Barry

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Godman, Dr Norman

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

Golding, John

Skinner, Dennis

Gould, Bryan

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

857

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

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Snape, Peter

Wareing, Robert

Soley, Clive

Welsh, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Wigley, Dafydd

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Stott, Roger

Wilson, Gordon

Strang, Gavin

Winnick, David

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Mr. Don Dixon and

Tinn, James

Mr. Allen McKay.

Torney, Tom

Question accordingly agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Local Government)
7.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
That the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 221), dated 12th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
This order was made on 12 February 1986 at a meeting of the Privy Council under the urgent procedure as provided for in schedule 1, paragraph 1(4)(b), of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The urgent procedure requires the order to be approved by resolution of both Houses within 40 days after the date on which the order was made, if the order is to continue in force.
Hon. Members will be aware that since September 1985 Unionist-controlled district councils in Northern Ireland have been adjourning, first, in protest about the presence of Sinn Fein members on councils and now because of the Anglo-Irish agreement. By the end of January, early February of this year, it was clear that the adjourning of councils would put at risk the striking of district rates for 1986–87. The House is aware that under the provisions of local government legislation in Northern Ireland there are three specific functions which must be exercised by councils themselves and cannot be delegated either to officers of councils or to a committee of the council. These functions relate to the striking of rates, the borrowing of money and land transactions. The failure to strike a rate is a clear indication that Unionist-controlled councils intend to escalate their action against the Government's policy. In these circumstances, the Government's first priority has to be the protection of services and jobs and it was for this reason that on 12 February we requested the Privy Council to make this order. I made clear at that time that
"This precautionary step is being taken because the Government is not prepared to allow citizens and ratepayers in any district council area to be deprived of those services and facilities to which they are entitled, nor to allow the jobs of council employees to be put at risk through the actions of councillors."
The House may be aware that there are default powers already existing in local government legislation in Northern Ireland. These powers would be insufficient to secure the uninterrupted delivery of local services, however, since they require a failure to exercise a function or a breakdown in service before action can be taken, and such action would take several weeks to complete. As it has now been indicated by some Unionist councillors that they wish to cause maxirnum disruption to local government, it would clearly be irresponsible not to take additional powers to minimise the damage that could be done either to the public or to the employees of the councils. That is the main reason why the Government are seeking the approval of the House to these new powers.
I should tell the House that we now have a situation where a majority within Belfast city council has deliberately defied the rulings of the High Court, where 18 councils, including Belfast, have deliberately defied a direction from the Department of the Environment to make a district rate, having earlier already decided to break the law by not striking a rate by the due date, and where these same councils continue to adjourn or suspend meetings, thereby threatening services in these council areas.

859
If I may now turn to the main provisions in the order, hon. Members will see from article 3 that, if it appears that a council has failed or is unable or unwilling to exercise duly and effectually any of its functions, the Department of the Environment could make an order which would suspend that council and appoint other persons to assume responsibility for the affairs in that council area. I think it important to emphasise that, since this is a measure of the last resort, the Government would also want to ensure that any application of these powers would not be permanent. Hon. Members will therefore see that there are provisions for the order to be revoked if circumstances subsequently changed and councillors were willing to resume normal business. It is also important to draw the attention of the House to paragraph (2) of article 3, since this would give the power for the suspension from all other public bodies to which a councillor has been appointed or elected by virtue of his membership of a district council. It would be anomalous to suspend district councillors from their council activities and not at the same time consider their suspension from those other public bodies on which they represent local council interests. The remaining provisions in article 3 are provisions which follow from the suspension of councillors and their replacement by others. These powers will ensure that those persons appointed to look after the interests in any council area have the full authority of the law to continue to exercise all functions previously exercised by the council. This would include the modification of any transferred provisions.
Paragraphs (7) and (8) are designed during direct rule to preserve the position of the Assembly if legislative powers were devolved to it. While direct rule continues, they are modified by schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which suspends the requirement to lay such orders before the Assembly in its present consultative form.
Hon. Members will see from article 4 that the legislation will remain in force until 31 May 1988 but could, if necessary, be extended for periods not exceeding one year until 1991; that is, for a five-year period in all.
The Government will not be deflected from their objective of safeguarding those services in Northern Ireland which are a fundamental entitlement in any society. The Government have been patient over a period of months during which local councils have not been meeting. The stage has now been reached where it has proved necessary to seek these additional powers as a contingency in order to be in a position to secure the provision of services and to protect jobs. I hope that these powers will not have to be used, but I can assure hon. Members and the people of Northern Ireland that, if it proves necessary as a measure of last resort to take this step, the Government are prepared to do so. I should like to remind Unionist councillors that the functions provided by their council, such as burials, refuse collection and the operation of leisure facilities, are for the benefit of all sections of the community. I naturally wish that these important local services should remain under the control of local elected representatives, but if this proves to be impossible the Government must be certain that they can step in to protect innocent members of the community.
I have explained to the House the background against which the Government have decided to introduce these new powers. I have outlined the main reasons why we find
860
it necessary to seek these powers and have given a summary of their intent. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that our action is justified in the circumstances, and recognise that the powers will be used only if it proves essential.
I commend the order to the House.
7.16 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: This debate must be set in the context not only of the Anglo-Irish agreement but of the Unionist reaction to it. For it is that reaction which has led to 18 Unionist-controlled councils in Northern Ireland systematically adjourning, systematically turning their elected faces to the wall, and declining not only to set a rate but to care for the majority community which elected them to do just that. It is not that those Unionist councils are unaware of their duties, as the Minister explained. 'All of them have been directed by the Department of the Environment to set a rate. All of them have, in effect, refused.
In one case, that of Belfast city council, the council has been ordered to do so by the Court of Appeal. But Belfast city council has closed its ears to the counsels of the law. The only law that appears to have any significance for those Unionist councillors who hold the majority in the 18 councils that have refused to set a rate—eight other councils which are not Unionist-controlled have set a rate—is the law of rhetoric or, rather, the law of King Lear—
"I will do such things,—
What they are yet I know not,—but they shall be
The terrors of the earth."
We have seen several such "terrors" since the signing of the agreement. Faced for the first time with an Anglo-Irish agreement that agreed ways should be sought to enhance security co-operation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, what did the Unionist leadership do? It organised a march on Belfast city hall. Faced with an Anglo-Irish agreement which led to the Republic acceding to the European convention on terrorism, what did the Unionist leadership do? It called for a series of by-elections throughout Northern Ireland, saw its vote fall, and found that one of its
Members of Parliament lost his seat.
Faced with an agreement that affirmed that any changes in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland—an obligation to be lodged with the United Nations—the Unionist leadership called for a day of protest which led to violence on the streets of Belfast; a violence that winged its way round the world and was seen on television screens in the United States of America at the very time when its Senate and Congress were discussing $250 million of aid for Northern Ireland and the border areas. We saw the work force at Harland and Wolff pulled out at a time when three vessels are up for contract with the Ministry of Defence, and when an assurance of political stability was sought. There was a call for the suspension of the very agreement that seeks to add a sense of security to the lives of all who live in Northern Ireland. None of these measures has had the slightest impact upon the Anglo-Irish agreement.
To add to the irrelevance of Unionist reaction, we are debating this order, which would give the Government powers to send in commissioners, on the very day that there has been a further intergovernmental conference in

861
accordance with the agreement. I am not entirely sure whether Lear would turn in his Shakespearean grave, but those who believe in the unity of the United Kingdom must be concerned that the attitude of the Unionists, the Unionist reaction, the Unionist response, the Unionists' turn to violence and intimidation, is likely to sunder the United Kingdom more than any IRA bullet, bomb or other act of aggression. The sight of Sinn Fein councillors voting to strike rates in their communities, while the Unionists seek to adjourn business, must be particularly galling for those who have long espoused the Unionist cause.
Those who believe in local democracy and who believe that local democracy should serve local people, that rates are set for services, and that services are there for people must feel a particular sadness when, on a small scale, Unionist leaders and elected representatives withdraw their consent and their representation in order to make their own people suffer more. For example, and it is only one example, some 40 jobs may be lost and a variety of community services brought to an end on 31 March because of Unionist non-co-operation at local level.
The Belfast Telegraph has reported that in east Belfast a clean-up programme could go, with the loss of 27 jobs, jobs created under the Action for Community Employment programme. Belfast city council has until Friday of this week to decide on grants for community groups for the 1986–87 financial year. The members of the council have been too busy to do that because they have been considering whether there should be a banner reading "Ulster Says No" on the town hall; that is more important to them than saying yes to renewal of community programmes. If no decision is made by the council, all the community groups depending on such grants will have run out of money by 31 March.
When an approach was made by the community groups to the appropriate executive in the Belfast town hall, he suggested three courses of action. The first was that an approach be made to a bank to negotiate a loan. This is impossible because, since most are charities, they cannot legally and knowingly run up deficits. This course of action was a non-starter. The second was to serve redundancy notices for 31 March, and I am saddened to have to say that most have now done this. We may here have shades of Liverpool, but whereas the Labour party was the first to squeal and shout at the treatment of the workforce of Liverpool, it is equally right that we should be concerned about what is happening to community workers in Northern Ireland.
The third alternative for these community groups was that the staff should be asked to stay on voluntarily from the 31 March. This alternative to firing people is just as bad, for they are condemned to work without pay because of the irresponsibility of Unionist-controlled councils. One asks them to run up bills and not to make mortgage payments because elected councillors turn their faces from the tasks that they were elected to perform. One brings local government into disrepute. One brings one's own principles to desuetude for an abstract principle of opposition to an agreement that guarantees one's rights but is not remotely concerned with how families can survive when the breadwinner does not work—or, in this case, works but is not paid—because a council declines to strike a rate.
Some 25 groups in Belfast alone will suffer as a consequence of this default of the Unionist-controlled council. Other workers funded from elsewhere will lose
862
their jobs if their organisations collapse. Further workers on Action for Community Employment schemes administered by the community organisations will also lose their jobs. The sum involved in relation to these groups is £129,850 for next quarter, or a total for the year of £389,550. The problem is not that decisions have been taken not to fund, but that decisions to allocate funding will not be taken in time. Seven directly funded resource centres will close. Seven other directly funded community centres will also close. The funding for these groups amounts to £79,600 a quarter. Some 27 full-time and 10 part-time workers will be affected. All 14 groups are on annual block grants from Belfast city council.
A further 11 groups in receipt of grant funding will be seriously affected. Four community relations projects will be placed in jeopardy, together with another seven: the Association of Local Advice Centres, the women's education project, the north Belfast resource centre computer project, the Workers' Educational Association sixties-plus unit, Trinity technical aid, Northern Ireland, the conservation volunteer urban unit and a community education project. These 11 groups receive their funding through the Belfast area needs programme. The money is provided by the Department of Education, but the city council can claim it from the Department only after it has been spent. The money involved—£50,250 for the last quarter of 1985–86—should have been claimed from the Department last Friday to cover the period from January to March 1986. It was not claimed, so, although the money is available, it will not reach the groups which need it most. For these 11 groups a total of nine full-time jobs are threatened, along with a number of ACE posts. The legal responsibility for community work was handed over to district councils in 1976, and the Department of Education has said that it cannot and will not interfere.
It has always been a part of the Unionist case that there should be true integration with the rest of the United Kingdom. It has long been espoused by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I am sure he will not begrudge my telling the House that Down council has actually set a rate—an 8p rise in the pound, which has put up the rates by 18 per cent.
But who would wish to give more powers to local councillors who then proceed to walk away from them? Are the Unionists fully aware of what they are doing to public opinion in this country, even in so minor a matter as the equivalent of parish councils setting a rate? Who would want to give them devolved powers over education, health, and fire services, if, for a political purpose, a political gain as they perceive it, they would withdraw their members from the council chambers, adjourn business and walk away? Even Pontius Pilate washed his hands before doing so.
The Unionist dream of integration, of giving more powers to local councils, must be even more remote as the British public gradually understands what withdrawal of consent means to the average, ordinary man and woman of Northern Ireland: a threat to services, a threat to jobs, disrespect for the law, and, if the Unionists had their way, anarchy.
The recital that I have given of Belfast city council's treatment of community programmes is mirrored throughout Northern Ireland. All Unionist-controlled councils are putting their voluntary organisations in the same position, although the crisis has come to a head sooner in Belfast because the court declared ultra vires the

863
town clerk's acting and taking decisions on behalf of the council. In other councils, the town clerks are still acting. Some of the non-Belfast councils, however, have been boycotting for an extended period, dating from the protests against Sinn Fein. Craigavon borough council first adjourned in November 1985 and has made no payments to voluntary groups since.
The immediate impact outside Belfast is lessened by the fact that no community group jobs are wholly funded by Unionist-controlled councils. Ultimately, however, the effect will be the same, as groups are denied funding and gradually bleed to death. What is happening in Belfast is only a microcosm of what is in store for the next financial year, and we urge the Government to remedy the situation now before there is irrevocable damage.
In a statement on 10 February, when he was talking of emergency legislation, the Minister said that it had been necessary to seek these powers to ensure that there was no breakdown in the provision of local government services, and to protect the jobs of council employees. He described the measure as a precautionary step because the Government were not prepared to allow citizens and ratepayers in any district area to be deprived of those services and facilities to which they are entitled, nor to allow the jobs of council employees to be put at risk through the action of councillors. The Minister had in mind the burial of the dead, the collection of refuse, the maintenance of public health and the operation of major leisure facilities.
What we have in mind is the community programmes, those who work in them, and those in the community who benefit from them. While we understand the Government's reluctance to send in commissioners too early, and accept that that should be a last resort, we ask the Minister to direct his attention to the community programmes and to those who are in them. We suggest, respectfully, that he directs his mind immediately to those issues.
No one wishes to disturb the balance of a local democracy or unduly to interfere with the powers of those who have been elected. But at the same time jobs should not and cannot be put at risk. It is shameful that Unionist councils have turned their backs on community services and on those who work in them. For that reason we urge the Government not to be intimidated on the ground by Unionist rhetoric or Unionist leaders; to let the commissioners go in to protect jobs and services; and not to let the people of Northern Ireland again suffer the futilities and barrenness of Unionist policy. We want the Government to act on these matters. We shall not divide the House tonight, but we urge the Government to act promptly when the order is placed on the statute book.
7.31 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The easy philippic to which the House has just listened will bring no benefit to any section or interest in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, including the Government. When the Secretary of State wrote on 13 February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) announcing the order he said:
"I understand the depth of feeling which exists."
Alas, would that that were so. It is perfectly clear that neither the Secretary of State nor the Government have
864
comprehended the depth of feeling that exists. If they had, the Secretary of State would not have perpetrated the solecism of fixing the debate on a day when in Northern Ireland the Anglo-Irish conference is meeting, and of sending almost the most junior of junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to present the order to the House. He would have realised the inherent offensiveness of that step, to which, I presume, he was blind because I do not imagine that it was intentional. It is simply an evidence of the continuing incomprehension.
The Minister would also understand why, having done that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and some of my other hon. Friends thought it would be more in the interests of their constituents in Northern Ireland and of the Union that they should be in the Province today and this evening, rather than in the debate. He would also have understood—this is what the debate is about—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) wishes to intervene, perhaps he would get on his feet and let us hear his remarks instead of muttering under his breath. I see that he is not responding to my challenge. If the Secretary of State had understood the depth of feeling, he would understand what it is that brings the debate about, and that in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland, ever since 15 November 1985, the Government of Northern Ireland are essentially a Government who are no longer that of the Crown in Parliament, but one effectively shared with the Ministers and Government of another country.
That being the sense shared by those councillors with large numbers of their fellow countrymen, they could not in honour continue to participate, even in the minimal form of government which is represented by the local government of district councils as it exists today in Northern Ireland—a form of government, which, not inaccurately, was described just now as being more or less equivalent to that of a district council.
Nevertheless, in the eyes of those men that was part of the government of the Province which had ceased to be governed as part of the United Kingdom, and where genuine authority and influence lay outside this country. That is why they declined to take part in or responsibility for even that vestigial part of the government of Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, it was right and necessary that the Government should take up the responsibility.
The Government have, under existing legislation, the power to make a rate. But I do not criticise the fact that the Government have taken power at the same time effectively to administer these local government services. They must take responsibility for that for which elected persons in those 18 councils no longer in honour feel that they can take responsibility. That is what is going on, and that is what lies behind the order.
It may come as some surprise to any hon. Member uninterested or unacquainted with Northern Ireland if he were in the Chamber this evening to know how vestigial the powers of district councils are. The Government are already directly responsible, although they do not always admit their responsibility to the House, for the major services which are administered in the rest of the United Kingdom by elected authorities. Only a small addition to those powers for which the Government are already responsible will be made if the order is put into effect. Indeed, the district rate covers only the penumbra of services. The general rate, which corresponds to the rate

865
paid in a corresponding part of the United Kingdom and supports the main services, is already fixed by the Government on the Government's responsibility.
I hope that if the order is put into effect, and I believe that it will be, the Government will accept their full, direct responsibility to the House for the details, as well as the policy, of all the elements of administration which then lie within their control. I hope that they will be prepared in the House to answer debate and questions on the details, as well as the policy of those services. Hitherto they have sought to hide behind the appointed boards for health, housing and education. I hope that they will not behave in that way in relation to the services which they will take over under the order from local government.
I believe that good can come from evil, and that the extremity to which the Government's mistake of 15 November is inexorably leading can have a good result, and lead the House and the Government to face the realities in Northern Ireland, instead of constantly hiding and running from them. Regarding local government—this was touched on by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)—there is no complete membership of this United Kingdom without full enjoyment of local government as it is enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom. There have been arguments and suggestions that only the vestigial powers that exist at present can safely be left with elected authorities. Otherwise, there might be misadministration and discrimination.
This order is a reminder that, as a learned judge remarked not long ago, local government is the creature of statute and local government is ultimately the creature of central Government. The ultimate responsibility for what is done in local government inexorably returns to and rests with central Government.
It is perfectly feasible that those councillors in Northern Ireland—and I know them well—of both political majorities and colours are capable of administering far more than the trivial services that are at present within their scope. It is perfectly possible for them to be entrusted with the range of services which elected councillors supervise and administer in the rest of the United Kingdom. What we are doing tonight is a reminder that it is wholly within the powers of Government to ensure that such a transfer of responsibility is not misused but is controlled and does not lead to any of the results which have been feared.
This is not an order that any of us would welcome. Rather we regard it as inevitable. Nevertheless, there lies behind the order, and I say so here tonight, the possibility that the day will come when the people of Northern Ireland will be endowed, as they are entitled to be endowed, with the right to local administration of those services which are locally administered in the rest of the United Kingdom. The claim of the people of Northern Ireland, as long as they are part of the United Kingdom, to be administered like the rest of the United Kingdom in all respects is in the end an indefeasible claim. That claim sooner or later will extend to local government.
7.41 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has spoken four times about the depth of feeling which exists in Northern Ireland, and which is not appreciated here. I assure him that I have seen that depth of feeling. I have
866
seen it in practical terms. I saw it last Monday. I saw it no later than yesterday. A brave and courageous nursing officer, who tried to get her staff into a hospital at Craigavon, had her leg broken by people who 'were suffering from a depth of feeling. One of my constituents was taken to Craigavon hospital with his head split by a brick, which had resulted from a depth of feeling. I know that depth of feeling; I know the result of it. I assure the right hon. Member for South Down that there is at least one person here who knows that depth of feeling and knows the effect of it.
It is a matter of regret that, as we face all our problems in Northern Ireland, the democratically elected councils throughout the north of Ireland have to be dealt with in this manner. I speak as a member of Armagh district council which will no longer operate when this order has been put into effect. When the councils were formed, we regarded them as having great potential. We regarded them as the nursery beds for partnership and reconciliation on decisions on a minor scale. We hoped that that nursery element would grow into the politics of the north of Ireland. However, like most other things, because of the depth of feeling, that opportunity was lost.
What have we seen? We have seen discrimination which has been proved in the courts of Ireland. I ask hon. Members not to take my word for it, but to look up the court records. We have seen the way in which councils have been used for political reasons. The Minister of State said that this was the second time that Unionist councillors had withdrawn from councils. It is not. It is the third time. On that previous occasion, as a member of a council and as a citizen, I attested to the court the right of Unionists to stop doing council business. I lost, and it cost me a great deal of money. After three attempts, I hope that the Department will now grapple with this problem.
I am loth to speak in political terms, but I find it difficult not to do so. I prefer to consider the merits of councils, their functions and effects, but it is not as simple as that because they are being used as political tools, not for the first time, but for the third time since 1973–-we must all realise the essence of this matter—to challenge the sovereignty of this Parliament, as we saw on the streets of Northern Ireland last Monday. The Unionists in the north of Ireland are claiming quasi-sovereignty -independence for Northern Ireland within the British context. Somehow they are seeking to have their cake and eat it.
Those in the House who are sincere, committed Unionists must realise that this is the essence of the Unionist revolt. That is why district councils are being treated as they are by Unionists on those councils.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has rightly itemised some of the effects that this will have. Yesterday, I spoke to people employed by Belfast city council in the resource centres. There will be no community service budgeting for those centres, and there will be no money for the neighbourhood development schemes in Belfast. Such schemes are crucial in a divided city where a concrete wall has to be built between the Protestant and Catholic sections. The neighbourhood development schemes and councils will not be able to operate. The wages of the people in the centres will not be paid, and there will be no cash for the resource centres. The Action for Community Employment schemes will come to a halt. New employment will therefore not be

867
created through the admirable ACE schemes. The clerks in the councils do not have it within their power to fund those resource centres any further.
We are entering a situation where people will lose their jobs and the food off their plates so that others can demonstrate their depth of feeling. That will be one of the net results. Another net result, which I fear as a councillor, will be the lack of services to the public. When I write to the district councils on behalf of constituents, I do not even get the courtesy of a reply. Councillors do not have the right of consultation to which they are entitled, especially with the Department of the Environment in relation to roads, housing and planning permission. That shows the way in which the electorate is being put at a tremendous disadvantage. This form of elected democracy, which should be the basis of the most intimate relationship with the community, is suffering and all that important work is going by the board.
Remarkable cuts in the housing programme, which councillors should examine and influence, are being swept through. Armagh district council will not furnish me with details of the housing programme. It will not send planning schedules. Therefore, people who, like me, wish to carry on as councillors do not have the facility to do so. Must my democratic rights and those of my constituents be sacrificed so that the depth of feeling can continue to express itself?
Mr. William Cash: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Will he explain whether the refusal to communicate with him is a deliberate act and, if so, who is responsible for it, as I find what he is saying extremely disturbing?
Mr. Mallon: In their wisdom, Unionist councils—they are the majority—decided to hand over all powers of administration to the chairmen of the councils, who could instruct the clerks to the councils. For the whole of the Armagh district council area, one man, who I saw manning the barricades showing his depth of feeling last Monday, has power over every item of council business and decides whether I shall get a reply to my letters.
The service to the public is vital and initiatives, if there are any, of some council officers will be frozen because they will not run the risk of taking decisions for which they might have to answer. They have to consider whether there will be retrospective authorisation of decisions. Council clerks who want to do their job properly are being put in an impossible position, as are councillors who want to fulfil their role.
The right hon. Member for South Down talked about the depth of feeling of councillors who are bringing district council business to a standstill. He conveniently ignored the fact that there are people in the north of Ireland who want to serve on councils. I am one. There are many others, including the 100 elected members of my party who want to serve their constituents, but they cannot, because the Unionist parties have arbitrarily decided that they will not. The right hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that eight councils are operating well. They have struck rates and are serving their constituents. They all happen to be in areas where there is a Nationalist majority. These are strange times indeed. I belong to a party which was born on the streets in revolt and in the civil rights movement. Unionism has gone down the road that we took
868
10 years ago and discovered was a cul-de-sac. Can they not learn even from recent history, if not more distant history?
I welcome the prospect of action on district councils at last. I have not seen much action in the past. It is unfortunate that it has been left to individuals to go to the courts at their own expense to test legislation. It was unfortunate that I had to do that. It was unfortunate that individuals from Craigavon and Belfast district council had to test the law. Why did the Department sit back and watch? I should have thought that it was part of its duty to discover legal realities. I hope that the Minister of State will give us some assurance that, as a result of this problem, he will have the legislation under which councils operate in the north of Ireland examined thoroughly, as it is patently faulty.
Because of faulty legislation, councils can be used, just as they have been three times since 1973. The ball is in the court of the Minister and the Department. I ask him to use some courage in that regard. The order provides that, if councillors are suspended, those who serve on area boards will also be suspended from membership of those boards. In those circumstances, it would be only right to appoint people from the councils who wish to serve to redress the imbalance. The Minister should not tell us that he cannot do that because every appointment after election to a council is a nomination by the Minister. He has an opportunity to ensure that democratic representation on those boards continues.
I am aware that the Unionist parties have sent the Minister to Coventry, but that is no reason why he should not speak to the other political parties in Northern Ireland. I remind him of a request that my party made on 19 November 1985 for a meeting to discuss the problems of district councils. We have not yet had a reply. The request has been repeated, but we have still not had a reply. I should have thought that four months was long enough. Is the Minister taking a leaf out of Armagh district council's book and ignoring the request of other parties?
I welcome the order with some regret and for an extraneous reason. If implemented, it will give the Department a chance to do something crucial—to get a worm's eye view of how local government operates in Northern Ireland. It will have an opportunity to see the quality that does not exist in many councils in terms of representation and administration.
The order provides that proper steps should be taken to ensure that councils at administrative level are properly led and administered and not dragged down to the depths by lack of imagination or commitment. The Minister knows what I mean and what I am speaking about. He should get a worm's eye view of what we have to live with in Armagh, Craigavon and many other councils throughout the north of Ireland.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough started with a quotation from Shakespeare. It is worth remembering that one of the essences of tragedy is that it is self-inflicted. Once again, we have the trauma of people in the north of Ireland inflicting punishment on themselves and others when it could be avoided. There should be no equivocation. The Minister said, "as a contingency" and "if it proves essential". I should have thought that experience of the past five months would have shown that the time for "ifs" and "buts" was over. I, too, would like to quote Shakespeare:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well

869
It were done quickly".
7.58 pm
Sir John Biggs-Davison: It was my misfortune to be absent when the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made his maiden speech, and I am glad to have heard him speak today with force and eloquence. It is right and proper that the voice of Nationalism should be heard in this place. Indeed, it is right that the voice of separatist parties in Wales or Scotland should be heard here. This House is a place where there can be dialogue between Unionism and Nationalism. The Northern Ireland Assembly cannot fulfil that role and I believe that, Ministers are now contemplating its termination.
There is an irony in a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party appealing to the sovereignty of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman described his party as being born in revolt. I thought that his parry's mission was to throw off the sovereignty of Parliament over Northern Ireland.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I hope that my days here are numbered, as I hope the days here of every representative from Northern Ireland and numbered. As I said in my maiden speech, I want to do that in such a way that we create unity within Ireland without spilling one drop of blood or diminishing one man's rights. As such, while I am a Member of the House I shall treat it with respect and I shall try to present that point of view, but make no mistake about my position.
Sir John Biggs Davison: I hope that it will always be possible for there to be discussion between Unionists and Nationalists in this House.
The Under-Secretary of State who introduced the order made a sad speech because this is a melancholy occasion. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh pointed out, the people of Northern Ireland of every faith and opinion now face hardship, inconvenience and danger. The order is the "Local Government (Temporary Provision) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986." "Temporary" is a euphemism for emergency. Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and this House are in the presence of the largest emergency since the troubles began. We all know whatever we say and however much we whistle to keep up our courage, that the Anglo-Irish agreement has antagonised the most moderate Unionists and the most moderate Unionist councillors. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) quoted "King Lear". I suppose that if by one's policy one drives men mad one is fully entitled to call them mad. That is what is happening today.
I submit to the House that it is time that both Front Benches stopped lecturing and started to listen. When will the day come, which was promised by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that Unionists will see the benefit of the Hillsborough agreement? When does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary think that we shall see progress under this agreement towards peace, reconciliation and stability?
The House rarely discusses local government in Northern Ireland and it is sad that now it is obliged to discuss local government it cannot do so in a constructive fashion. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) hoped that some good would come out of this evil and that realities in Northern Ireland would now be faced. The reality is that the only practicable constitutional way
870
forward is that which is constantly neglected and even ridiculed by Ministers — the fullest administrative devolution to local government — analogues to, not identical with, local government in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is the way forward. I invite Ministers to consider that way forward. It might help to mollify an estranged majority in the Province of Northern Ireland.
8.3 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: A fortnight ago today the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. After that meeting a statement was issued by the Prime Minister—I do not think that it was an agreed statement—in which she said that she also offered consultations with the Unionist leaders about the arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business in Parliament at Westminster.
I have long felt that this procedure for debating legislation for Northern Ireland, even if the motion which stands in the Prime Minister's name is moved and passed, is most unsatisfactory because we cannot amend the order which is now before us. Therefore, I very much hope that the matter which was discussed a fortnight ago will be resumed and that there will be further discussions about arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business in Parliament at Westminster.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the timing of today's debate. It is perfectly understandable that the leader of his party and his hon. Friends wish to be in the Province today. However, I shall allow myself what I hope the right hon Gentleman will not think is an impertinence. I want to say that I hope that the leader of his party and his hon. Friends will participate in this House in future debates which affect not only Northern Ireland but the rest of the United Kingdom and all other matters. I hope to see a return to full representation from the Unionist parties in this place.
The arrangements for this evening's debate, however unsatisfactory, are arrangements which I believe are required by the situation. In my opinion, there was no way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could have failed to bring forward this Order in Council at this time. However, perhaps even my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will agree that the debate would not be taking place had it not been preceded by the Anglo-Irish agreement of 15 November.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for South Down that those who sit on the Treasury Bench still do not understand, or at least give no appearance of understanding, how deep is the feeling of bitterness and resentment about what happened on 15 November. There is no need for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take my word for that. I can understand if my hon. Friend pays no heed to me, but he ought to pay heed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. During an interview published in the Belfast Telegraph on 17 December 1985 my right hon. Friend said that the response in Northern Ireland to the Anglo-Irish agreement was "much worse" than had been expected. Was it much worse than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary expected?

871
Yes, I think that all Northern Ireland Ministers, if they are honest with themselves, will say that they did not expect the reaction to be as it was. Why did they not expect the reaction which was totally predictable and predicted by others? It was because the advice which was being given by those in the Northern Ireland Office to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was based on a misunderstanding of the depth of Unionist feeling.
I understand why the order is before the House but I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that one cannot continue to govern a part of this kingdom in a way which is massively and significantly different from the way in which one governs other parts without the consent of the majority of people whom one is governing differently.
I hope that it will not be necessary for this order to remain in force for long, but I can understand the depth of feeling that have led Unionist councillors to take the action that they have taken. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will show a little more understanding of those depths of feeling and a greater willingness than has been in evidence since 15 November to acknowledge that it is just possible that Northern Ireland Ministers may be in error.
8.10 pm
Mr. Needham: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) made a powerful plea for a deeper understanding of ACE schemes and community projects in Northern Ireland. I think that the whole House will agree that it is a pity—I put it no higher than that—that the protest that we so much hoped would be both lawful and peaceful turned out in several instances to be neither. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough said, in local government, the effect of the unlawful process is to bring into considerable doubt the schemes that are of real benefit to the community.
We have only become fully aware of the problems that have arisen within the past few days, and we are considering them. I go back to what I said earlier—the appointment of commissioners would be a last resort, and grant-aiding community projects is a permissive power available to the councils. We wish to see those permissive powers kept with the councils and used by them, as that is the basis of their functions.
I could hardly be flattered by the comments made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about my position in Northern Ireland. However, I am the Minister responsible for local government and for the protection and provision of services. Therefore, it is right that I should be here to introduce the order and reply to this debate.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member explain—I understand his point—why his colleagues are not here. In support of something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) I point out to the right hon. Member that I hope it will not be too long before his colleagues return to take up their seats, as I think that I heard him suggest might be the case, so that they can resume their questioning of me and my colleagues with the determination of which I know that they are capable.
872
When they do so, I humbly suggest that they encourage their colleagues to resume some of their functions on councils, although it can be argued that many of the services that local councils perform, as the right hon. Member for South Down said, are trivial in comparison to many of the functions that local councils or county councils have here. I must agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that it will be even more difficult to persuade Government or Parliament to give greater responsibilities to those councils when at present their councillors appear to be prepared to act outside the law.
Unfortunately, I was not here for the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) but I have read it and I have had the privilege of listening to him come to the wicket for the second time. Whereas the right hon. Member for South Down hardly flattered me by calling me the most junior of junior Ministers, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, by referring to me as the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, has done my ego a great deal of good. All of us—I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—understand the depth of feeling in the majority community. Therefore, it is even more necessary that all of us, wherever we are and whatever our position, are careful about the words we use and the tone in which we use them.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the ball is in my court. I cannot accept that proposition entirely, but the whole point of local government has to be that the powers that are given to local government are exercised locally. If they are not being conducted properly we have, as a Department, introduced a commissioner of complaints and the local government auditor. We are not "big daddy", and nor is it right that we should be. The hon. Member and some of his colleagues have taken the opportunity of pursuing matters locally through the courts and that, in our judgment, is the way to proceed.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Many of our right hon. and hon. Friends are thinking carefully about the depth of feeling. Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that we could understand it better, when we look back on the day of action or strike, if we had been able to see a more spontaneous withholding of consent, if that was what was going to happen, by those in Northern Ireland, and not the widespread intimidation, barricades and bullying that appeared to go on that day, which seemed substantially to fog any true expression of feeling?
Mr. Needham: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The effects of the day of action, and its effects on the British public at large, were traumatic and extremely unfortunate. It has done considerable harm to future investment possibilities in Northern Ireland and to the image of the Loyalist community. That is a tragedy because I know that the vast majority of people in the Unionist and Loyalist community in Northern Ireland are decent, law-abiding and sensible people.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked about the introduction of commissioners, but I hope that that will not become necessary. If they were to be introduced, all councillors would be suspended. Therefore, it would not be possible to take councillors who are against the boycott and put them on to boards—such a move would not be a particularly good and sensible idea as it would be denying the ballot box by putting into positions of power people who had not been elected to those positions.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister—I go no further this time after promoting him last time—for giving way. However, I have to disagree. Every person who sits on an area board is in the last analysis appointed to it. Some of these people are not elected to district councils or to any other office. If a commissioner is appointed, the councillors who wish to serve on the council are disadvantaged not only in connection with the council but in relation to sitting on an area board. The Minister must clear up that contradiction.
Mr. Needham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are rules governing appointment to boards which vary from one board to another. There are ministerial appointments which take into account the background, experience and professionalism of appointees to those hoards. In other cases many people have to be appointed and the minister and the Department have no say in that under the statute.
Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister confirm that each person who sits on an area board is appointed to that board by the Minister responsible for that relevant board?
Mr. Needham: I think that we are getting into a slightly esoteric argument but the point is that the Minister has no discretion and must accept the people put forward to him from the local authorities or from the organisations under the statute.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The point that the Minister must clarify is whether the withdrawal, after the appointment of commissioners, of these appointed members from the boards will create vacancies which can be filled by the Minister. The Minister must address himself to that point.
Mr. Needham: I cannot give a definite answer to that question. As I understand it, and I will confirm this later to the right hon. Member for South Down and to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh the appointments are lost and cannot go to the commissioners and would not fall back to the Minister for appointment. I will find out and write to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman about that.
874
I apologise to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh if he has not received a reply to his request to send a deputation to see me. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances I am only too happy to receive a deputation from anybody. I have been informed that the hon. Gentleman's November or December letter did not arrive and I have replied to the hon. Gentleman's colleague in the last two weeks.
As the only part I have ever played in Shakespeare was the fool in King Lear, I shall adjure from making any quotations. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne who commented that men who were driven mad become mad. I understand my hon. Friend's point, as it was Lear who drove himself mad.
I must tell the House that as the Minister with responsibility for the environment I do not relish bringing this measure to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is correct to say that in the Prime Minister's statement following the talks in Downing street one of the offers that was made was to consider the methods by which legislation in Northern Ireland could go through the House. The councils were adjourned because of the Sinn Fein presence before the Anglo-Irish agreement. Nevertheless, I accept that the situation has been subsumed by that.
As I said before, in putting this order to the House, I hope that, we will not have to use it. I hope that in local affairs in Northern Ireland it will be possible, accepting the depth of feeling, for councils to resume their normal business in the not too distant future in the same way as the right hon. Member for South Down has resumed his place in the House.
We all agree that the order should not last too long and that it is an order we would prefer to do without. However, as the Minister responsible for the environment, I have the duty to protect services and jobs if necessary. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 221), dated 12th February 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
8.26 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It might be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on this order may cover all the matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
Dr. Boyson: The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The draft order has two purposes. First, it is intended to appropriate the 1985–86 spring Supplementary Estimate. That is dealt with in part I of the schedule that sets out the details, by class and vote, of a further £72·7 million required from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. That sum is in addition to some £3,056 million which has already been approved by the House for the 1985–86 financial year. It brings the total Estimates provision for 1985–86 to £3,129 million.
Part II of the schedule gives details of the issues for which the vote on account of the £1,365 million for 1986–87 is required. That provision is necessary to enable services to continue until the 1986–87 main Estimates are debated later in the year.
Full details of all the provisions sought in the draft order can be found in two volumes, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. These are entitled the "Spring Supplementary Estimates" and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account."
Before going into the details of the extra funds being sought, I should like to say a few words about the general economic position in Northern Ireland and its effect on all of these accounts. The trend for both total industrial production and manufacturing output has until recently remained upward. There is also some encouragement to be gained from the employment figures. In the year to September 1985—the latest period for which information is available—total employees in employment in Northern Ireland fell by 1,490 as against falls of 2,100 and 5,850 in the two previous 12-month periods. Nobody wants an increase in unemployment, but, in the past four or five years, there has been a steady decrease each year in the number becoming unemployed. There is evidence that the numbers of self-employed may be rising. At the last Northern Ireland Question Time, I said that we estimated that there had been an increase of about 7 per cent.—to 85,000—over three years in the number of self-employed people.
Nevertheless, a continuing rise in the supply of labour has been evident. One factor is that the birth rate in Northern Ireland is 36 per cent. higher than the birth rate in Great Britain. Also, the decline in the number of people emigrating means that unemployment remains the major economic problem in the Province. There is no getting away from that.
The Government are making a determined effort to tackle that problem through the job creation efforts of the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the various training and re-training
876
schemes. However, the violence and destruction which took place during the strike a week yesterday, which was televised throughout the world, will certainly not help the efforts being made by the IDB, the LEDU and others to bring additional industrial investment into the Province.
I turn now to the provisions of the draft order. In class I, which covers agriculture, token Supplementary Estimates are being taken in both vote 1 and vote 3 to bring some important changes to hon. Members' attention. In vote 1 an increase of £200,000 is sought for the payment of student awards at Loughry, Greenmount and Enniskillen agricultural colleges. This brings these awards into line with other student support arrangements in Northern Ireland. However, additional receipts from board and lodging charges in student halls of residence have more than offset the increased expenditure. This is a book entry in which the figures are moved from one column to another. An additional £600,000 is sought for scientific equipment to test meat for residues, including hormonal content, and for research into the potential of using irradiation for the preservation of food. As about 80 per cent. of meat in Northern Ireland is exported, not only to Great Britain but to the rest of Europe, it is important to consider its hormonal content.
Also within vote 1, an additional £900,000 is required for the milk outgoers scheme to compensate producers who have given up milk production. Farmers in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Members are very concerned about the milk quota scheme. This additional £900,000 brings the total provision for payment to milk outgoers to £1·3 million to finance the reallocation of 32 million litres of Northern Ireland quota.
In addition, a further 2·5 million litres have been made available through transfer of direct sales quota. Regrettably, this represents only half of the Northern Ireland tribunal determinations in respect of exceptional hardship claims and allows some limited provision for small producers. I am very conscious of the need to find ways of bridging the gap and bringing Northern Ireland producers into line with their Great Britain counterparts. There may be some hope of solving this difficult problem in the proposed new EC outgoers scheme which is presently under consideration in Brussels. We are all concerned about this.
The second token Supplementary Estimate is in class I, vote 3, where £300,000 from the European Community is being appropriated in aid. These receipts under the urban renewal regulation are in respect of expenditure on drainage infrastructure projects largely in the Belfast urban area.
Turning to class II, the additional provision sought in votes 1 and 2 relate to the activities of the Industrial Development Board. Within vote 1 an extra £518,000 is being sought—£450,000 to meet additional expenditure on factory building and estate development and the balance for increased administration costs. The fact that a further £450,000 is required for factory building is a welcome reflection of increased capital investment by industry this year. This money is required to enable extensions or alterations to be made to a number of buildings to meet the requirements of particular projects. A proportion of the money is used in the development of Northern Ireland's first technology park at Antrim where construction work is well under way. The first phase of the main roadway is nearing completion. The building of two 7,500 sq ft units has begun, with a completion date for the

877
first of the buildings in July 1986. I am glad to say that interest in the park by industry has been particularly encouraging.
Of the £21–6 million being sought within vote 2, some £20·6 million is required to meet claims for grant assistance arising from the IDB's activities in recent years in promoting and maintaining employment in Northern Ireland. Expansion and modernisation projects recently promoted by the IDB are now coming on stream and beginning to earn their financial assistance. The IDB is continuing to concentrate resources on the priority activities of attracting new investment projects and encouraging the expansion and reorganisation of existing industry. New measures have also been introduced to encourage companies to focus greater attention on marketing.
One of the basic needs of the Province is to find the markets and to make the goods to satisfy them. The new measures include special exercises to increase exports, to maximise local resources and to improve marketing skills. A major initiative designed to encourage industry to adopt a more strategic approach to marketing has been launched. Successful trade missions have already taken place in the United States, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Overseas the IDB's promotional activities are concentrated on clearly identified areas, both sectorally and geographically, which offer the greatest potential for sales from the Province to overseas markets.
In class II, vote 3, an additional £1 million is required for the Local Enterprise Development Unit—Northern Ireland's small business agency. I pay tribute to the LEDU which has promoted almost 26,000 jobs since it was set up in 1971. The figure for the last financial year of 4,009 jobs was a record. Viewed against the economic conditions of recent years, that is a considerable achievement which demonstrates not only the potential that exists for small firms in Northern Ireland but the continuing success of the agency's work in promoting development and employment in the Northern Ireland small business sector.
An additional £4 million is sought for the continued support of Belfast shipbuilders Harland and Wolff. This increases the provision for the year to some £36·6 million and highlights once again the Government's recognition of the company's importance to the Northern Ireland economy.
Right hon. and hon. Members will note the significant increase of £20·6 million in the provision for capital investment grants. Changes to this scheme were announced in March 1985 which included a reduction in the overall rate of grant from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. with effect from 1 May 1985. There has, therefore, been some acceleration of investment by industry to avail itself of the higher rates of grants under the former scheme and to benefit from the higher capital tax allowances which are now being phased out.
In class II, vote 5, the labour market vote, there are three areas seeking extra funds in the current year. First, an additional £1–82 million is required for the youth training programme. This is a direct result of the programme's continued success in attracting into full-time training schemes a large number of 16 and 17-year-olds who would otherwise be unemployed. At the last Northern Ireland Question Time, I cited figures showing that in the current year a higher percentage of those without jobs have opted to join the YTS than in preceding years. That is a
878
vote of confidence in those working hard on the schemes, as is the fact that more people are getting jobs before they end their training. This year, 57 per cent. of those between 16 and 17 who undertook the one-year course have left to go to jobs. In the previous year, it was 55 per cent., and in the year before that it was 51 per cent. The fact that three out of every five people who join the schemes go directly to employment is a vote of confidence in the schemes. There are still opportunities for employment in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, an additional £1·48 million is required for the training on employer premises scheme, which is designed to help to meet local industries' manpower training requirements and to encourage a planned approach to the training of new recruits. The scheme has proved very attractive to new small firms. This involves the drawing up of a plan by a small firm showing how it will train its new recruits. The plan is then submitted to the Department of Economic Development for approval by its technical assessors. The agreed version covering the extent and period of training is the basis of agreement between the Department and the firm. It is intended to produce a systematic training course which will benefit the firm, the trainees and the Northern Ireland economy. Hon. Members know that comparisons are often made between the amount of training given in other countries—for example, Germany—and in Britain. We should all welcome any increase in training either outside or inside the firm.
Thirdly, class II, vote 5—the action for community employment scheme, better known as ACE—requires an increase of £1–75 million. ACE provides tempora.ray employment for the long-term unemployed. By the end of this financial year the number of employees is expected' to increase from 3,050 to 4,400 and we hope that by June 1986 5,000 will be on the scheme.
We must continue to hope that, with employment in the Province picking up, we shall not need so many schemes of this type. But we must go on the basis that, with the level of unemployment that now exists—and, as I said, the strike a week ago will not help investment there—provision is made so that people need not stay on what we used to call the dole, but have opportunities to retain their self-respect, interest and availability for full employment.
In class IV, vote 1—roads services—net additional provision of £1·6 million is being sought. Increases in expenditure on operation arid maintenance of roads and street lighting and on public liability claims are partly offset by additional receipts from sales of surplus land, the recoupment of VAT and EC receipts under the urban renewal regulation.
In class V, vote 1—housing services—the net increase of £6·1 million is attributable largely to a technical adjustment relating to changes in the pattern of Government recoupment of the Housing Executive's expenditure on house renovation grants and to an increase in the number of grant applications. Within the vote, a fall in demand for the co-ownership scheme in the early part of the year has led to a projected underspend of £4 million in the provision for housing associations. This has been used to offset higher revenue requirements by the Housing Executive, mainly in increased loan charges arising from higher interest rates and borrowing levels.
Further token provision occurs in class VI, votes 1 and 2. In vote 1—water and sewerage services—an increase

879
of £1·6 million for operational and administration costs is offset by savings in computer costs and additional receipts, mainly from metered and other water charges.
In connection with vote 2—improvement of the environment—right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that major conservation legislation bringing Northern Ireland into step with the rest of the United Kingdom came into operation during the current financial year. This, together with the acceptance by the Government of the main thrust of the recommendations of the Balfour report, "A New Look at the Northern Ireland Countryside," has meant the commitment of an additional £700,000. The result of this expenditure will be to provide better access to the countryside, and thus enable Ulster people and visitors to the Province to enjoy the many natural beauties of the area.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: If the roads are not blocked.
Dr. Boyson: Yes, if the roads are not blocked. Knowing the ingenuity of the people of Northern Ireland and the beauty of the hills—not that I am suggesting that people take to the hills when the roads are blocked—one trusts that tourists to the Province will come not just to see demonstrations in the towns—we would rather that they did not see such things—but to see the beauties of the whole Province.
This is a side of Northern Ireland which, unfortunately, does not receive much attention from those who observe events in the Province. However, from personal experience I assure the House that parts of Northern Ireland are as beautiful and peaceful as areas anywhere in the world. Hon. Members have a responsibility to sell that fact at every opportunity. Indeed, this morning I attended a meeting designed to increase the number of tourists coming to the Province.
I come to education, class VIII, where Supplementary Estimates are being sought in votes 2, 3 and 4. In vote 2, an extra £2·5 million is sought. Just over £1 million of this is to cover the cost of redundancy and compensation payments made to staff prematurely retired under university restructuring arrangements. A further £300,000 is required in the university capital sector, where additional expenditure on computers has been partly offset by slippage on the development of Magee college campus. Hon. Members will recall the decision we made last year on the extension of the Magee college campus—a development that has been widely welcomed in the area.
About £600,000 is required to cover the cost of the 1985 pay award to further education teachers, while £700,000 is sought because some receipts from the European social fund, which were expected in the current year, will not be received until 1986–87. There always seems to be a difficulty in knowing the date when funds of this type will arrive. Accordingly, we must make provision, pending their arrival, to keep everything going. We know that they will come, though sometimes we should like them to arrive faster. There is a saving of £100,000 on the training and interchange of teachers which contributes partly to offsetting the additions required.
Under vote 3, which covers Department of Education miscellaneous services and administration, a token £1,000 is sought. Increases totalling almost £700,000 are required for departmental administration costs—notably the
880
installation and running costs of computer equipment. These are largely offset by savings on capital grants to district councils resulting from slippage. Substantive provision is also sought for VAT and EC receipts, which are expected to amount to £1·2 million.
Vote 4 is the final education item. Of the total of £900,000 sought, £550,000 is required for increased capital expenditure on essential minor works in schools, including a number of health and safety schemes. The balance of £350,000 is a net figure resulting from a downward revision of estimated receipts, notably those from the European social fund, some of which are not now expected until 1986–87.
On the health and personal social services front, in class IX, vote 1, I draw attention to a new mental health commission and to other significant changes within the vote. Subhead C7 of vote 1 makes provision for the mental health commission, an independent body to be established under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to safeguard the rights of patients in mental hospitals. It will not begin work formally until later this year, and the provision in the current financial year is to meet essential advance expenditure.
Now the other changes in class IV, vote 1. It is planned to increase expenditure in this vote by £3·5 million, £1·1 million of which is to assist with the transitional costs of opening the new Belfast city hospital. As hon. Members may know, the first in-patients were admitted to the new hospital early in January, and the transition from old and exhausted buildings to the new hospital is now gathering momentum.
The new hospital took a long time to build. Some sceptics doubted whether it would ever be finished. We can now rejoice in the knowledge that patients have moved in. It is fortunate that the timing of the opening of the hospital should coincide with the debate. That has not been intentional. While some might say that certain unfortunate events are having to be discussed, I am now dealing with a fortunate event. I am glad to say that not only is the new hospital now in operation, but that the new accident and emergency department opened for business this evening, though I hope that no hon. Members of this House will ever have to use it.
Other significant increases in capital expenditure are proposed to take account of essential health and safety work and in grants to voluntary bodies.
Before leaving class IX, I wish to draw hon. Members' attention to an unfortunate discrepancy between part 1 of the schedule to the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and last year's spring Supplementary Estimates volume. The increase to appropriations in aid for vote 2, class IX was stated in the schedule to the order as £1,489,000, whereas the correct figure of £1 ,389,000 appeared in the 1984–85 spring Supplementary Estimates volume. This regrettable clerical error had no bearing on the actual amount which this House approved should be issued out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund or upon the actual level of expenditure by the DHSS. It came to light only after close study. It has not affected anything that has happened in the Province. No one realised until now that an error had been made. Sometimes one wonders what other clerical errors have occurred. Indeed, there may be some in what I am saying tonight. Next year I, if I am so honoured, or some other Minister may have to correct the figures that I have put forward tonight. So far as I know, there are no clerical errors in them —

881
[Interruption.] I must not be diverted by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), obviously a militant in disguise as he is sitting below the Gangway. If he is not upsetting the Church of England, he must not be allowed to upset us. I must add that I have the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think that remark will do him any good. If it would help him in his constituency for me to attack him, he only needs to tell me.
Mr. Frank Field: I had intended to wait until the end of the Minister's presentation, but, as he has kindly mentioned my presence, perhaps I may raise a point now. The hon. Gentleman said that Harland and Wolff was getting a subsidy of £36 million. Can he give an undertaking to the House that none of that money will be used to create unfair competition between that shipyard and shipyards in England and Scotland?
Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constituency concern, as well as his ultimate seeking after truth. I should perhaps have put those in reverse: I appreciate his seeking after truth and also his minor constituency interest.
Mr. Field: Just answer the question.
Dr. Boyson: I shall answer.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend requires notice.
Dr. Boyson: No, of course not. I answered my hon. Friend on de Lorean and I can answer him again. We are pressing to the end on those legal cases.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Birkenhead. Any competition for orders must be fair in every way. We are committed to that in our support for Harland and Wolff. When it competes for orders, including defence orders, with shipyards elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the books will be checked to ensure that the competition is fair. I give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that that will be done.
A token estimate is also found under class X—social security—in the provision for non-contributory benefits, where increases amounting to almost £3·5 million are offset by savings and increased receipts. In vote 4, an additional sum of about £3 million is sought for administration and miscellaneous services, covering salaries and wages and charges for agency services.
I also draw hon. Members' attention to amendments to the ambits of votes 2 and 4 and consequential changes to sections G and A of the respective votes. The changes clarify the relationship between the Department of Health and Social Services and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in the payment of housing benefit and were made following criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report on the 1984–85 appropriation accounts.
In class II, vote 3—other public and common services—£4·1 million is sought mainly to finance the ongoing reorganisation of the efficiency services and the related costs of computer hardware.
Finally, in class XII, vote 1—office and general accommodation services—increased provision of £2 million is required mainly to meet additional costs in the new works and maintenance subheads arising from the repair of bomb damage to Government premises in Belfast.
882
In these opening remarks I have tried to cover the main features of the draft order and to draw the House's attention to a number of new items of expenditure.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Can my hon. Friend help me with other figures? Apart from security matters, how much does it cost to operate government as a whole in Northern Ireland, and what is the tax take in round figures from all sources within the Province?
Dr. Boyson: I welcome questions from the Opposition more than from my hon. Friends. I can answer the second question, but I am not sure about the first. Government expenditure in Northern Ireland is about £4·5 billion. About £1·5 billion, or 37 per cent., is transferred from the United Kingdom. I shall write to my hon. and learned Friend if I am wrong; I shall write to him even more cheerfully if I am right. From my statistics, it seems that the tax take in the Province is about £3 billion.
As for the cost of the administration of the various Departments in the Province, I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend an answer without studying the document. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who will be winding up, is already turning the pages rapidly. I should not be surprised if he, either himself or by inspiration from outside, found the answer to the question. If my hon. and learned Friend wants an answer from me, I shall write to him tomorrow.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall not press my hon. Friend at this time about the cost to the administration in Northern Ireland of pursuing the de Lorean affair. There will be future occasions when. I can do that. I have listened with great interest to the able way in which my hon. Friend has put forward the appropriation measure. Has he any concern about the increase in administration which, as he has indicated to the House, is occurring in the appropriation measure? Under a number of separate headings he has indicated that the cost of administration has been more than was estimated. When all is said and done, the cost of administration is necessary, but it is not passing the real facility and service to the people who need it. People are not necessarily receiving the benefit of the funds and resources which are going into Northern Ireland. Does he have any concern about that and is he prepared to comment?
Dr. Boyson: I shall comment. Obviously administration involves those who are directly serving the public. The ultimate test of administration is: is the public served as it should be? The Department of Finance and Personnel checks carefully the numbers employed and keeps them under tight control. If we add up the changes in the various orders, it is not a great amount. That does not mean that we should not look at them. A man can drown in 6 ft of water as easily as in 20 ft if he is only 5 ft 11 in tall. Much of that is the result of late pay claims. A similar situation arises from the current teachers' pay claim which, on my reckoning, will cost about £20 million, and that will have to be cleared up. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend and give him a full reply dealing with administration as a percentage of the overall budget and of the numbers employed over the past three or four years for his satisfaction and for mine. I must hurry on before hon. Members think of other questions, and that must not be encouraged.
As usual on these occasions, right hon. and hon. Members will wish to express their views on these and

883
many other matters. I shall listen with great interest to the points raised, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply to the debate. The order deals with the basic question of money going to the Province. We do not take that lightly, although I trust that we take it cheerfully.
I commend the draft order to the House for the continued good organisation and administration of the various Departments in Northern Ireland.
8.59 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: This debate is an exercise in direct rule. In the previous debate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) expressed some criticisms of the way in which Northern Ireland is ruled. Some of us in the House have expressed those same criticisms more than once. A few months ago some discussions took place with a view to improving matters but they were overtaken by more dramatic events.
The House is debating tonight the intensely practical needs of the people of Northern Ireland, and, as the Minister of State has just said, they are important issues. They are not dramatic issues. They are not highly charged or likely to be widely reported and the House is not so well attended for this debate as it was even for the previous debate. If those facts come to the knowledge of the people of Northern Ireland they may conclude that no one here really cares about them. That would be a misleading assessment, but it would be an understandable one. I hope that we shall be able to resume the discussions which were taking place some months ago to ensure that while direct rule survives it becomes a more meaningful process.
I say at once that we are not seeking to oppose the order. The Opposition's complaint is not that the Government are seeking to make provision for services in Northern Ireland but that they are making so little provision. We should have been glad to support a more generous provision. The Government never tire of telling us how much money is provided for Northern Ireland, and, as the Minister said in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) a few moments ago, a substantial sum of money is being transferred—£1·5 billion a year. That is not inappropriate because for many years public services in Northern Ireland were allowed to fall tragically behind the equivalent services in other parts of the United Kingdom. We are still engaged in the catching-up process.
In addition, the people of Northern Ireland still have more than their share of contemporary crises. We heard in the previous debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) of the many voluntary services into which so many people pour so much dedication and care, in many cases with no financial reward. Those are services which can make vital differences to whole communities. Those people are looking forward with no joy to the end of their contemporary funding.
That situation is not principally of the Government's making but we have ventured to hope that the Government might want to help. The Government's sin is not that of the thieves on the Damascus road. They have not robbed the traveller. If there is a sin—perhaps we shall be able to assess this better when we see what transpires in the immediate future—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman means Jericho.
Mr. Archer: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He reads my mind better than I know it myself. I did mean the Jericho road. His geography is also better than mine.
Mr. Powell: My scripture is better.
Mr. Archer: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman's scripture is better but on that occasion it was more accurate.
We shall be in a better position to assess the Government's actions in the near future. Their sin is not that of the thieves. If there is a sin, it is the sin of the indifferent officials who passed that way and who saw the problem but passed by on the other side.
For the services to which I now seek to invite the House's attention, the provision is the Government's responsibility. The way in which it is provided is part of a pattern that applies to the whole of the United Kingdom—squalor in the public sector. We are speaking of public provision of services of which once this country could be proud, services which were the envy of the world, but now public provision appears to be seen as the last resort for those who can afford nothing better.
I turn first to part II of the schedule, class VIII, No. 4, grants to education and library boards. In order to live within the Department of Education allocation of £35,460,000 for the coming financial year, the southeastern education and libraries board will have to cut £711,000 from its services. It will be spending that much less than it is spending in the present year. But that is not the full extent of the shortfall because to keep its services at the existing level would require just under £750,000 additional money, so it would have meant reducing the services even if there had been no cut at all. The real reduction, therefore, will be the sum of those two figures, in the region of £1·5 million for the year. That is the southeastern board. The Belfast board is having to reduce its budget by about £1·6 million, and the southern board by about £700,000.
All those are figures on paper, and are the work of accountants. But I have seen what they mean for people in the area of the Belfast board. I have been to some schools whose heads have received instructions from the director to reduce the cleaning bills by taking out of use part of the floor area. It may mean locking away classrooms or other accommodation, it may mean closing off parts of the school and that, it is hoped, will reduce cleaning bills by reducing the cleaners' wages. I was shown what that would mean for education—parts of the school will simply not be in use any more for education purposes.
I saw the other side of the coin. I spoke to ladies who had given years of service as school cleaners. In a number of cases they were the only wage earners remaining in their families because their husbands, sons and daughters were unemployed. When I spoke to them, it was not known whether some of them would be sacked. Some were wondering whether their earnings would be reduced below the figure that would qualify them for pension entitlement so that, having worked in some cases largely in order to be assured of a pension when the time came, they may find those pensions taken away from them. They did not know how the cuts would be made. They knew only that the total

885
amount to be paid to them collectively as wages would have to be reduced. They felt that the board not only had not prescribed how the reductions should be achieved, but possibly did not greatly care. It may be that was an unfair assessment, and that members of the board cared desperately and were very unhappy about what was happening.
What I suspect may be wholly fair is to say that this all came about because of the Government's proposed cuts. The Government have not demonstrated that they care greatly how those cuts are to be achieved. The Government have not measured the need, they have not calculated how much could be saved from a particular bill without causing harm, they have not assessed whether there was any identifiable slack in the system. The Government just lopped a global figure off the budget for those boards. They have told the boards that this has to be saved from somewhere, irrespective of its effect on the children, on the men and on the women. It may be achieved by reducing the earnings of people who depend upon those earnings, or it may mean sacking people who will have lost all of their earnings, or it may mean cutting the budgets in some other way, but the Government have decreed that those cuts should be made and apparently they have not manifested any concern about how they should be made.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out that the Government have referred to the boards a required quantum of reduction and have left the boards to decide how that is to be achieved. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me that since these boards are appointed by Ministers who are agents of the board the Government are just as responsible for the methods by which he cuts are achieved as for the quantum of the cuts themselves? In fact, a sham local government responsibility is placed upon the boards which stand between the Government and their real responsibility for detailed administration decisions.
Mr. Archer: I follow what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would not want to associate myself with the view that the members of the boards are virtually robots who are propelled by strings that are pulled by the Government. That would be less than fair to people who make a substantial contribution to public life in Northern Ireland. It would be better if these matters were decided in some way by the elected representatives, and I certainly agree that, when they are given a global figure and told to get on with it, those who give that global figure to them must accept their share of the responsibility.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept, as I do, in support of the elected representatives in this House from Northern Ireland, that they would wish to see much more meaningful local government implemented in the Province at the earliest possible date? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts the argument that I have put forward and my point of view, would he and his colleagues support those hon. Members who want really meaningful devolved government to be granted at the earliest possible date to local authorities in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Archer: I have read the document entitled "The Way Forward". It would be out of order and perhaps out of place in this debate if we became involved in a
886
discussion about the future of local government in Northern Ireland. I was seeking to draw to the attention of the House not so much how these decisions are taken but what will happen to children and their families because these cuts are being made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I content myself with that question for the moment. We may have an opportunity to discuss his question on another occasion.
We are told that the board takes the view that £35,000 could be knocked off the milk and meals bill. No doubt it could, but so far as I can see that could be done only by reducing the quality of the meals. In many of these schools, meals are not an additional snack which provides a kind of optional extra. Many of the children I saw receive virtually no other substantial source of protein. One headmaster to whom I spoke in a deprived area said to me, "They do not come to me to be educated; they come mainly to be fed." That may have been a cynical view, but we are speaking of schools where it is unusual for a child to come from a family which can afford to pay for school meals. I asked one headmaster how many of his children pay for school meals. He said, "I am still using the roll of meal tickets I started four years ago."
One way in which the Belfast board is seeking to meet the target is by cutting £100,000 off the Belfast school of music. That would mean an end to something like half of its teaching. Belfast has a long musical tradition. It has maintained that tradition, despite all the difficulties of recent years. The people of Belfast have found solace and inspiration in their music. Now, in addition to all their other deprivations, they are to be deprived of music teaching. The Government are even stopping the children from singing. I have written to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). I say at once that he has not yet had time to reply. I look forward to his reply. But when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), replies to this debate we shall be grateful if he is able to provide a crumb of comfort about that subject.
Mr. Mallon: I see the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. He is concentrating on one area board, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that more places in Northern Ireland than Belfast are affected by such cuts.
Mr. Archer: I readily accept that. But the hon. Gentleman will understand that in the interest of time I cannot go through all the figures with which I have been provided. I was citing an example of something which is tragically widespread.
One other way in which the Belfast board proposes to save £50,000 is by closing two nursery schools and, I believe, five nursery units. I do not know whether the Government have assessed whether there is a need for those schools and units. But I heard today about one of the schools which is to be closed. I refer to Stranmillis school. Its closure will save rather less than £10,000 a year. It is attended by Catholic and Protestant children, and, I am told, by black and white children. The school is already over-subscribed, so there is no suggestion that the places are not needed. The families of those children do not seem to have any alternative school to which to send their

887
children. They just have a problem. The total number of nursery places to be lost amounts to about 300. What is to happen to those 300 children?
I turn to class V and housing. In his clear opening speech the Minister told us that the apparent increase in the grant for housing was simply a technical adjustment. However, I know that on 30 January 1986 the Housing Executive announced that its budget for 1986–87 was £94 million less than it had envisaged. It had requested a budgetary increase of £50 million and it had received a cut of £44 million. That means that there will be 1,500 new houses instead of 2,500. In addition, improvement work on 7,000 homes will have to be shelved, including work on 2,000 homes that are designated as priority, and the rehabilitation of old houses will have to be halved.
I say at once that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland is to be congratulated on a substantial improvement in Northern Ireland's housing position over the past few years. But that, of course, has to be seen against a background of deprivation. There is still a waiting list of 24,500 families. About half of them are estimated to be in urgent need. Although that need is still unmet, it looks as though some 3,000 jobs will be lost in the construction industry as a direct result of those cuts and that another 2,000 will be lost indirectly.
That gives the lie to the suggestion that unemployment is caused by modern technology. Those 5,000 workers will be eating their hearts out on the dole not because those vital houses are being built by robots but because they are not being built at all. So we have a Government who appear to be indifferent to education and housing need.
Class X relates to social security and other financial benefits. It would be easy to give examples of families in need of immediate benefit. But the House has discussed such problems before, and I do not propose to list them tonight. Instead, I shall turn to the Government's proposed restructuring of social security. As the Prime Minister told us some time ago, it is a restructuring. There will be some winners and some losers. The implication, as I understood it, is that that makes it about right. I do not accept that, for two reasons. First, we are dealing with individuals. It does not follow that because someone has done a good turn to A it is all right to do a bad turn to B. It might be acceptable if it could be shown that the losers were all those who could afford to lose, but that is not the case. The cuts are falling on the low paid, the unemployed and the elderly along with everyone else.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the winners and losers will balance. Those in the most vulnerable categories are not likely to break even, even when they are considered not individually but as categories. As I understand it, no one will receive benefit to cover the whole of the rates. Even the poorest will pay 20 per cent. of their rates bill. There will be no additional lump sum payments for those receiving supplementary benefit for special needs.
At Question Time on 27 February, I quoted some calculations of Dr. Eileen Evason, who estimates that, overall, single people will lose
"an annual total of £8·9 million, pensioners £11–4 million, low-income families £3·3 million and families as a whole £8·8 million" .—[0fficial Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1061.]
888
Has the Minister a word of comfort for the people affected by all that?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate—and I am sure that my hon. Friend will say this when he responds to the debate—that the Social Security Bill to which he has just referred is still going through the House, and its conclusions have not been reached. I hope that he and his colleagues, together with some of my colleagues on the Government Benches, will put down amendments not only in the remaining Committee stages but also on Report. There are still some uncertainties and the concern that he has expressed about certain areas is shared by both Government and Opposition Members. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that?
Mr. Archer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those encouraging words, and I will see that they are passed on to my colleagues who serve on that Committee. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Bill is not directly concerned with Northern Ireland, but it may be that any advantages gained on that Committee will be reflected for the people of Northern Ireland. I am most grateful to him.
Finally—and I say "finally" not because it is the last example of deprivation but because my time will be exhausted long before this unhappy catalogue of suffering is complete—I draw attention to class IX, item 1, expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Services on health and personal social services. Does that item include any provision for the hospital service? The hon. Gentleman referred to the new City block. I had pointed out to me recently the new guidelines for getting better value for money in the health and social services. I make no complaint about that. We are all in favour of better value for money. If that inquiry can identify areas where resources can be saved without damage to services, there will be no complaint from Opposition Members. Until that has been done, however, we still have to look at cases where the lack of resources causes serious problems.
For some months there has been widespread anxiety about hospital services in Northern Ireland. Some local hospitals are threatened with closure. At others there is concern because the services are not meeting the requirements of the public. There has been concern about what is called "paediatric cardiology". Those are long words. The use of technical terms sometimes seems to soften the force of the blow. What it means is children with heart conditions. The Government have made some provision for that, for treating renal disease, for cervical screening and for the diagnosis and treatment of AIDS. For that we are grateful. The provision came after some recent manifestations of widespread concern. The Government made the money available, but the Minister will have seen the letter by Professor Buchanan, the chairman of the medical division of the Royal Victoria hospital, in the Belfast Telegraph of 6 March, indicating that it is very far from the end of the problem. Recent losses of acute medical beds in the region have thrown considerable strain on other medical beds. The closure of Claremont hospital has led to the loss of neurology beds, and that has led to a shortage of specialty beds generally.
Two days after the letter, on 8 March, Mr. Jim O'Reilly, an official of CoHSE, gave examples of the

889
consequences of that loss of beds. He spoke of seriously ill patients waiting in the corridors of the Royal Victoria hospital because no beds were available. We know that hospitals have been placed under acute strain. Perhaps a crisis has been averted because the staff are concerning themselves to avert one, but unless something is done lives will be placed at risk. I cannot attempt to put it better than Professor Buchanan when he said:
"The Government appears to be intent in cutting the 'boiler room' of medicine, the unsorted acutely ill who are often elderly and may have additional social problems. This area tends to be unglamorous, without champions and pressure groups. It is, therefore, a softer target, as it is less indentifiable and has less muscle. But it is at the front line of hospital medicine.
The public must be made aware of the feelings of impending doom prevalent among the servants of the National Health Service. We agree with rationalisation, but the cutting of funding which can result in deterioration in patient care and almost certain loss of life is unforgiveable."
I do not seek to improve on that as a way of drawing to the attention of the Minister what is going on in the hospital service.
I have sought not to over-dramatise these matters, but to recite the facts as I know them. Unless the Minister says that those are not the facts, the House is entitled to ask: what action are the Government proposing to take? The burden on the House is all the heavier because today, for political reasons, which I would be out of order to discuss, all those misfortunes are falling on the people of Northern Ireland when most of them are not being represented in the House and when their needs are not being made known by their elected Members of Parliament.
We in the Labour party have not made the task of government in Northern Ireland more difficult than it needs to be. No one can accuse us of lacking in restraint. But these things are crying out to be said, and someone must say them. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland will be listening to the Minister's reply.
9.26 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In presenting the order, the Minister gave the House a painstaking analysis of some of the major expenditure decisions which were reflected by the figures in the order. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) responded in critical vein by dealing with the substantive matters of expenditure in a number of classes and votes.
I intend to concern myself, however, as heretofore exclusively with the constitutional aspect of the order. My difficulty is that the Minister in charge of the order knows what I will say, but does not know how I shall say it in a different way from the way in which it has been said already, but hopes that I shall succeed. The gravamen of the matter is that, with the appropriation orders, we are wasting the time of the House without any corresponding gain in the precise scrutiny by hon. Members of the separate items of expenditure, or the opportunity to bring forward pertinent criticisms and to push them through. We are doing that because of the existence of an entirely unnecessary piece of financial mechanism—the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, into which money is poured so that it may be poured out again, but with the side effect that a simulacrum of financial control is created which is discharged by means of these three appropriation orders during the year.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this evening we were engaged in an exercise in direct rule. With great respect, I would not say that that is correct,
890
because we could dispense with the necessity of these orders, and, indeed, with the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, without altering, although I hope that he is as anxious as the rest of us to alter, the procedure on legislation by Order in Council. I have his assent that that is the essence of what we have agreed conventionally to describe as direct rule.
The exercise in which we are engaged is the preservation of one of the relics of the Stormont Government and Parliament. It was set up in 1920 in order that the Stormont Government and Parliament might operate as nearly as possible as if it were a dominion Government and Parliament with a separate financial organisation and a duplication of the financial machinery which this House uses in the United Kingdom. We are taking part in the charade of keeping that in existence on the offchance that—one does not know, but somehow, some day or other in some unforeseen circumstances—it might be handy to have a Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland.
In doing that we are perpetuating one of the causes of instability in the Province, which is uncertainty as to the constitutional future and repetition of the determination to the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom to deny to the people of the Province that to which they are entitled as part of the United Kingdom, to be treated, administered and legislated for like all the rest.
I did give a half-indication to the Minister that I would try to vary the message to which he has so courteously responded and acknowledged on previous occasions. Happily enough, there came into my hands—although not only into mine but into those of other hon. Members and I am sure into the hands of the Government or the Government's advisers—an article by Andrew Likierman, who is the senior lecturer at the London Business School and a director of the school's institute of public sector management, which has published a propos in the Journal of Irish Business and Administrative Research—it could not be better blessed in its origin or in its authorship.
He has, for the first time so far as I know, carried out a thorough and critical examination of exactly the phenomenon which is before us this evening in the form of this order. He is not in favour of it. He believes that it mystifies far more than it enlightens. He is on the track of the question that the Minister was asked from his own Back Benches. It tends to obscure the real relationship between the finances of Northern Ireland and the finances of the rest of the United Kingdom. It also denies to those who are attempting to control expenduture in Northern Ireland the full use of the opportunities which are given in the rest of the United Kingdom by the financial mechanisms which operate there.
I am not going to trouble the House with many quotations, but in fairness to Mr. Likierman I think it would be right if one or two sentences were on the record. He said:
"the Northern Ireland position is made very much more obscure than that of the rest of the United Kingdom because of a mechanism in the control of Northern Ireland expenditure which has no parallel in either financial or constitutional terms elsewhere in the United Kingdom—the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund which was set up in the 1920 Government of Ireland Act."
He then points out that it is perfectly practicable to dispense advantageously with this antiquated survival from a past constitutional era and says:

891
"To bring Northern Ireland into line with the practice for Wales and Scotland, it would not appear to be difficult technically to cover the Northern Ireland Supply Estimates as a whole in Class 17. The dividing line between what was covered in Class 17 and what was covered in other Classes"—
this dividing line applies to Wales and Scotland as well—
"would then be decided on the basis of administrative boundaries".
In other words, he is saying that Northern Ireland should be treated as Wales and Scotland are treated for the purpose of Estimates and for the purpose of financial procedures.
He then outlines the two steps which would produce that result:
"First, the creation of a Select Committee to handle the affairs of Northern Ireland in the same way as the affairs of Scotland and Wales are handled by their respective Departmental Select Committees."
May I interrupt the quotation at that point to refer to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West? I am sure that he would agree with me that that interrogation would be conducted much more effectively if it were conducted within the ambit of a Select Committee which could call for witnesses and interrogate Ministers and report to the House.
Mr. William Cash: I have advocated such a Select Committee and I am most interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting one himself as a mechanism for ensuring that there is proper discussion in the House where all who have the right to be consulted and can consult one another can sit around a table, discuss matters and call for papers and witnesses.
Mr. Powell: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question strictly in the financial context, but he is entirely right. The deduction from treating Northern Ireland for financial purposes as Wales and Scotland are treated is indeed that that method of scrutiny would be available to deal with the Northern Ireland Estimates.
I interrupted the quotation. I shall return to the remaining part of it which outlines the second step which, in the author's opinion, would need to be taken.
"Second, the winding up of the NICF and the direct voting of Northern Ireland expenditure by Parliament in the same way as public expenditure for the rest of the UK is currently voted. With or without Direct Rule, Northern Ireland Supply Estimates could be voted through without the need to engage in duplicate voting of 'Transfers to the NICF' at Westminster or the transfer of funds into and out of a notional account."
We are holding an inquest, I hope, this evening upon a constitutional device which does not serve Northern Ireland or those who represent the people of Northern Ireland, which does not serve the convenience of this House and which is out of line with the financial mechanisms that the House has evolved, and recently improved, for the control and scrutiny of public expenditure.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman or to delay the House on this important subject but if the right hon. Gentleman's proposal were accepted—I would urge the Government to give it more than just sympathetic consideration as a means of bridging the gulf—would the right hon. Gentleman, whose presence we are all delighted to have, give an assurance that it might bring some of his worthy colleagues back to the House so that the people of
892
Northern Ireland would be represented here? Would it give them the opportunity to come back without breaching the principle upon which they clearly feel it difficult to serve in this place despite having been elected?
Mr. Powell: It is not for me to pass my personal judgment on my colleagues' decision where and how their duties to their constituents of the Province are best discharged, but I can come towards the hon. Gentleman by saying that anything which holds out to the people of Northern Ireland an assurance of the only available constitutional stability—that is, to be treated as what they are: a part of the United Kingdom—would be a pacificatory and beneficent act and could well be crucial in overcoming the current crisis which has been upon us since 15 November.
I wanted to refer to a respect in which Northern Ireland happily is within the ambit of the financial procedures of the House. We have the benefit of the consideration by the Public Accounts Committee, along with the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. It would be churlish of me, having said what I have about financial arrangements, not to acknowledge in this House the work done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and the stimulating effect it has on the Northern Ireland Department.
I hope that those who serve Northern Ireland in such a way do not imagine that, because of our apparent preoccupation with politics, which is unavoidable, we do not study or benefit by their work. I have taken the occasion in other contexts to pay tribute to those who scrutinise the delegated legislation. I pay tribute here to those who scrutinise the financial accounts of the Northern Ireland Departments.
I should like to refer to the response published only in October 1985 by the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel to two reports of the Public Accounts Committee, particularly the 14th report. I think that it would be fair to those whose work resulted in that interchange between the Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel to underline some of the recommendations. I underline the recommendations in connection with hospital costs, the separation of staff and patient catering, full trading accounts for canteens, monitoring of the level of staff contribution to overheads, and target levels for waste. I believe that all those matters have been taken on board by the Department of Health and Social Security but it would be welcome if it could be acknowledged by the Minister when he replies. If there is anything to add since the report which was laid before the House in 1985, I am sure that he and I could contrive ways in which that could be made available more widely than simply by a letter to myself.
I want to refer to the supplementary benefit paragraphs of that report, particularly to the subject of single payments and the potential abuse of single payments. Here, I am approaching ground mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. I was one of those who was dismayed by the proposal so drastically to reform the single payment procedure as has been agreed, at any rate, for the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that this is one of the opportunities that one can take to put on

893
record what I have found to be the function of the social security offices in Northern Ireland and the use by those offices of the weapon or instrument of the single payment.
It has been my experience in the 12 years that I have represented a constituency in Northern Ireland to have been far more closely involved in the affairs, needs and anxieties of my constituents than I ever found was the case in Wolverhampton. I have been much closer, thereby, to the practical work, individual by individual, of the social security offices and have often been a bearer of tidings between the constituent and the social security office. I want to put it on record—I hope that it is not too late for this testimony to be taken into account in any reforms which take place more generally throughout the United Kingdom—that I have been impressed by the extraordinary value of the single payment as a means whereby unique circumstances can be treated uniquely by the social security staffs.
Social security staffs are, for the most part, highly experienced and very hard-boiled individuals. They combine those necessary qualities of experience and being hard-boiled with very real human understanding and sympathy and knowledge of local circumstances. Over and over again I have been astonished at the way in which what seemed to be a way out, request or plea from a family or a person has been recognised, defined and met by a social security office by means of a single payment.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the corporate wisdom of the Select Committee on Social Services, which has undertaken a short but full report on the reform of social security proposed in the White Paper, fully endorses his views.
Mr. Powell: I am glad to hear that, and I believe that a substantial element of such discretion will be left behind in the hands of the social security officers, for over and again I have found that apparently intractable family and individual conditions can be analysed and dealt with in a way that they could not have been dealt with without the power to make a single payment.
No doubt there has been substantial additional expenditure beyond what was estimated under this head; there will always be, where there is discretion, marginal cases where judgments might be different and where possibly pressures—perhaps especially in Northern Ireland—have been unduly exerted. I have no hesitation in testifying to the House that overwhelmingly, on the basis of my experience in the past 12 years, not only do the social security officers perform the most outstanding of all the social services in the Province, but the ability to use their discretion in the form of a single payment is an instrument of which it would be wrong to deprive them.
9.46 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: It is of the essence of the Union that we are all united in one country, and it is because we are united with Northern Ireland that tonight we are debating this order and the moneys that will be transferred from this part of the United Kingdom to that part of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for clarifying in my mind the fact that those moneys are about £1·5 billion each year,
894
excluding the cost of defence. It is proper that the better-off portions of the United Kingdom should be paving that money to assist Northern Ireland, which is less well-off at the moment, but which I hope will not always be so.
Nevertheless, we should be conscious that this is the first appropriation order debate since the Anglo-Irish agreement and it is the view of the House, which is one Chamber of the Parliament of the Union, that the agreement is in the best interests of our nation as a whole and of Northern Ireland. That view may be right or wrong. With my limited knowledge, I support it. Real benefits for Northern Ireland and our country as a whole can derive from the agreement, and I do not believe that it represents the threat to Northern Ireland that I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and some Opposition Members, believe it to be. Whatever we believe, it is the will of Parliament.
I realise that those who oppose the agreement feel the matter deeply, but because we are all one Parliament I am taking this opportunity to say that if people hold such feelings, the right place to express them—they have the best possible example in the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—is in this Parliament, where they can talk to us and help us to understand their views better, and give us the opportunity to express to them the reasons why we hold a contrary view.
I was most interested in what the right hon. Member for South Down said on his constitutional theme—that he wished that the whole of the United Kingdom were governed in the same way. I may be misrepresenting what he said, but I hope that I understood at least that he was seeking to say that we should be governed much more closely in the same way, whether we be in Northern Ireland or on the mainland. I cannot see why that should fit in with any dislike of the Anglo-Irish agreement. It should make the agreement even more popular because, whereas they see themselves separately treated, it would mean that we were all treated in exactly the same way.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the hon. and learned Mernber suggesting that the Anglo-Irish conference should deal with the administration of Wales, Scotland and England? If that is so, I would join hands with him.
Mr. Lyell: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. Although it is not my suggestion that that should happen, if it did happen perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for objecting to the agreement would disappear.
Mr. Powell: It is no worse than the EEC.
Mr. Lyell: As the right hon. Gentleman says in his own way, it is no worse than the EEC. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem. The Anglo-Irish agreement is no worse than the EEC.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating the appropriation order and expenditure in Northern Ireland and not the agreement.
Mr. Lyell: You are correct, Mr. Speaker, to draw me back to that topic. I shall return to the appropriation order. I started with that subject and I apologise if I have gone on a slight loop.
I started with the agreement because the appropriation of moneys from one part of the United Kingdom to another part is essentially the function of this Parliament. It is

895
inextricably bound with the other elements of government and with the most important element of government in Northern Ireland which is in all our minds at present.
Whatever the view about the appropriation order or the view of the nexus of this party or Government or of the Government of any other country, the right place for such a view to be expressed by hon. and right hon. Members elected from Northern Ireland is within this Chamber. The right attitude for those hon. Members to express towards bullying, barricading, or threats to their citizens, which will increase the costs and the requirements for appropriation from this House, is here in the Chamber. That last point brings me back within the rules of order.
Hitherto I have received no correspondence from my constituents on the subject of Northern Ireland in all the years that I have represented my constituency. My constituents now make the point that they think that the people in Northern Ireland should obey our laws, particularly those people who set themselves up as leaders in their community. They should obey our laws in the same way as we expect everyone to obey our laws.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. and learned Friend is making an interesting speech, quite late at night. Would he agree with me that, if he wants to see his objective reached, the Government could achieve it by setting up a Select Committee for Northern Ireland along the lines described by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in his interesting and positive speech earlier in the debate? Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This subject is rather wide of appropriation.
Mr. Winterton: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that that could be achieved, in relation to appropriation matters, along the lines of the Select Committees for Wales and Scotland that already exist in the House?
Mr. Lyell: You will recognise, Mr. Speaker, that constitutional suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) always require the most careful thought. Consequently I shall ponder his suggestion.
There are other interesting constitutional ideas in the Anglo-Irish agreement which might or might not have a bearing on my hon. Friend's suggestion for wider discussion between various parliamentarians. I commend those ideas for careful thought also.
I should like to conclude by saying that the way of democracy is persuasion and the way to persuade is to be present to persuade. We greatly look forward to seeing those whom we deeply respect as brave men, elected to represent their constituents in this House, present in the Chamber to do that.
9.54 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lye11) and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), I find it refreshing to have an opportunity to speak without referring to Northern Ireland's constitutional position or any of its attendant problems. I shall be brief because the right hon. and learned Member for Warley,
896
West (Mr. Archer) put his finger on all the major issues in the order with which I wanted to deal. He did so superbly and referred to the essence of my criticism of the legislation. When it comes to buildings, machinery and land, there is an increase, but when it comes to people, there is a decrease. That is the essence of the order.
I should like to refer to the people who are least able to look after themselves. People in the farming industry are suffering. On the suggestion of agricultural advisers in Northern Ireland, they went into the milk industry. Suddenly, a milk quota was tied around their necks and they could not cope. They could not sell their milk. We have been told that there has been a £1·3 million increase, but that is not an adequate amount to give the people who need to be saved.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to re-examine the quota to ascertain ways to help those farmers. It is not merely a matter of farmers having had a bad year. It involves the loss of the farmer's entire stock and machinery. It entails total reinvestment by the farmer if he is ever again to become viably involved in agriculture.
I have dealt with one raw material in Northern Ireland—grass. I should like now to deal with another resource—our young people, especially in relation to education cuts and the comments by the Minister of State on class II. The Minister said that there was an increase of £1·2 million in the youth training programme. What provision, if any, will be made from that sum for the special training programme for handicapped people? Last year, I contacted the Minister's office about this matter. It is sad to see the way in which young handicapped people cannot avail themselves of the programme's benefits. Under that programme, they can develop at their own pace. They cannot cope in training schemes, so they give up. I specifically ask for an increased provision because of the need in all towns in Northern Ireland. It is a shame that we do not have such a provision.
I agree with what the Minister said about the increased allocation for the ACE schemes, but he made no reference to Enterprise Ulster. That was a serious omission. Although I am a great advocate of ACE schemes, I recognise that Enterprise Ulster has created employment stability. It has provided great advantages for district councils and various other bodies. Enterprise Ulster caters for the middle-aged part of the market whom ACE schemes simply do not cover. Has the Minister been converted about Enterprise Ulster?
Under class V, the Housing Executive will receive £94 million less than it requires. I should like to home in on one element of the Housing Executive. It applies not only to Northern Ireland but to England, Scotland and Wales. The cuts have meant that maintenance is not of lasting benefit. That applies right across the board. In five, 10 or 15 years, some of the maintenance work will have to be carried out again. That means pouring good money after bad.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (1) of the Standing Order (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) to put at that hour.

ESTIMATES, 1986–87 (NAVY), VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1987 a number not exceeding 71,000 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1986–87 (ARMY), VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1987 a number not exceeding 187,600 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 141,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 86,000 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 7,780 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

ESTIMATES, 1986–87 (AIR), VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1987 a number not exceeding 96,600 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 6,900 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,500 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1985–86
Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £896,102,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for the Defence and Civil services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 3Ist March 1986, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 190, 213 and 249.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1984–85
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding 155,484,146.89, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1985, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 227.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the two foregoing Resolutions and upon the Resolution [3 February] relating to Supplementary Estimates and to Excesses, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Brooke.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1985 and 1986: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Mallon: I was referring to the repair and maintenance of Housing Executive houses, and my remarks apply not only to Northern Ireland but throughout Britain. Good money will have to be thrown after bad because of the decisions that are being made about maintenance work following the cuts that the Government have made.
I raise a constituency point; I have spoken to the Minister about it, although it applies to other parts of the country. There are in my area 184 houses which are being converted from gas to coal-fired. This is the third system to be put in those houses, all in an attempt to get the smoke to go up the chimney. A blind man might have seen at the beginning that a proper chimney was required, but no. Three attempts were needed to prove that a chimney was necessary. What has been the cost of that? If we skimp on such matters, we shall get a bad job and it will cost double or treble the money to put things right later.
As I have said, our second great natural resource in the Province is our young people. We shall debate this whole issue tomorrow, and I hope to speak then. Youngsters in Northern Ireland—the same will apply to many people in Britain—will find that unless daddy has a great deal of money they will not get third-level education. A Northern Ireland student studying in Britain will lose about £500, in addition to losing the travelling allowance to and from the Province. No one will be able to afford such education.
That policy is short-sighted. Bitter experience has taught us in Northern Ireland that when young people find themselves on the scrap heap of life at 18 they are prey to the paramilitaries and to those who want to use them. It costs much more to keep someone in gaol for 10 years than to keep him at university for three or four years with a proper grant. That matter must be considered.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has dealt admirably with education cuts which affect those within the education system who are least able to look after themselves. It is not just the big schools in Belfast but the small rural schools which are losing additional hours of teaching. Those schools need them most because they have a greater percentage of problem and educationally subnormal pupils. The kitchens will be closed in many schools. That will be a false economy. The kitchens and the equipment will still be there but the Department will have to meet the extra cost of bussing in the meals. The Minister should note that that false economy will prove detrimental, especially in rural areas.
Class X deals with attendance allowances, invalid car allowances and related benefits. I have been trying to find out what is available to a totally blind person who is not otherwise disabled. In a caring society such a person cannot get a mobility allowance because, to qualify for it, one must be either unable or almost unable to walk. A blind person who can walk may not be able to get anywhere because he needs someone to help him. The totally blind person cannot get an invalid car allowance because, of course, he cannot drive. The totally blind person who is not otherwise disabled cannot get an attendance allowance because, to qualify, he requires constant attention day or night, or both day and night. If he can look after himself to any extent he cannot get an

899
attendance allowance, nor can someone who helps to look after him get an allowance. Therefore, in a caring society a category of the severely handicapped cannot get allowances which are available for others.
There is a fault in the legislation if attendance allowances cannot be paid to the totally blind who are not otherwise disabled. Such a person should be able to take advantage of the mobility allowance. The legislation must be amended. We can gauge the attitude of Government and of society when they leave at a total disadvantage a small sector of the community who suffer through no fault of their own.
I leave the House with one thought. I have a small booklet here on disablement allowances. The totally blind person cannot get an attendance allowance, a mobility allowance, or any allowance to enable his relations to look after him. What he can get is very interesting indeed. It is rather cynical and insensitive. He can get a television licence at a reduced cost. That is written here. It is time that this book went into the incinerator and a proper system of services for the totally blind was printed, with the necessary changes in the legislation, so that those people are not at such a disadvantage.
Let me finish with one general point on class XI, vote 1. I note that £1,452,000 is earmarked for the Northern Ireland Assembly. We heard an interesting debate between the right hon. Member for South Down and Conservative Members on scrutiny, but here is £1,452,000 earmarked for an Assembly from which a former Secretary of State walked out and to which he refused to return, and from which the present Secretary of State has threatened to withdraw staff if they do not carry out the scrutiny that the right hon. Member for South Down was advocating. Yet within this appropriation there is that sum of money for a body which is not doing that.
I leave the matter there. I do not want to make a political point, but I should love to see that £1,452,000 being usefully used on something like services for blind people or allowances for young people who wish to continue their education.
10.11 pm
Mr. William Cash: I wish to make one simple point. In the House we are primarily concerned with the voting of money and the redress of grievance. In both cases, one needs to participate in order to be able to appropriate.
It is with great interest that I see the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in the Chamber. I deeply regret the fact that he is not accompanied by his colleagues. There is an opportunity for a positive and constructive solution to the current difficulties with Northern Ireland—there is an opportunity for building bridges.
I was particularly interested in the point that the right hon. Gentleman made on the extract that he read by the gentleman from the London Business School and his reference to the Select Committee. I know that the right hon. Gentleman confined his point to the financial aspects, but it would be far better if his colleagues could find their way to coming back to this Chamber in order to participate in the vote which will lead to the appropriation of moneys under this order, and in so many other ways.
900
I think that a Select Committee could be devised—I am not proposing the Grand Committee system, because that would be wholly inappropriate—with amendments to Standing Orders 70(a) and (b) relating to public business which would enable us to have a Select Committee in which there could be real participation and in which Northern Ireland Members could sit down with those from the rest of the United Kingdom and discuss matters which are germane to the future of Northern Ireland.
I have nothing more to say on the subject, other than that I hope we can maintain dialogue. It is a matter of the greatest importance that those Members of the United Kingdom who represent Northern Ireland who are not here tonight, should attend future debates.
10.14 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted, in dealing with matters relating to Northern Ireland, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I find myself thoroughly in sympathy, as I think the House will be aware from my earlier interventions, with his proposal about how the House, by involving the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, could deal with all matters relating to appropriation, which is the purpose of the order.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will give more than passing attention to the repeat—if one may put it that way—speech by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), because I believe that he put forward a way of bringing the elected representatives of Northern Ireland back to this place to deal with matters that concern them and their constituents.
I have to relate my remarks particularly to matters of finance in the appropriation order. The message is clear. I believe that it gives an opportunity for all parties to the current dispute to come together with honour in order to solve the problem. I hope that the message gets to the Secretary of State and perhaps even beyond him, to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and to the Prime Minister. It is encouraging to observe my hon. Friend the Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State nodding to me, indicating that the message has been taken on board, because I know that it is felt strongly by a number of Members on these Benches as well as by representatives of the Province.
I wish to pick out two points from the order. The first is class V relating to the Housing Executive. I am taking up a point touched upon by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) relating to the amount of money being spent on housing improvement and on rehabilitation. I have had the honour of visiting Northern Ireland on many occasions, not least recently when I visited south Belfast and other areas of Belfast. I know how important it is in Belfast for the massive programme of housing improvements to continue. It is unfortunate that there will be a cutback in expenditure in this respect.
I believe that the communities of Northern Ireland must be permitted to remain together and increasingly to blend. That will not be achieved by mass demolition and redevelopment. It will come gradually by communities which have lived together continuing to involve themselves in what is going on in their own areas—for instance, in Belfast. That comes about by communities working and staying together. It can be achieved only by

901
rehabilitation and improvement, not by mass redevelopment which brings into an area many people who have nothing in common. I make a plea to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that money allocated to housing rehabilitation and improvement should be increased.
The other point I wish to make follows remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West relating to pre-five schooling, particularly in Belfast. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a cutback in Stranmillis—an area which I have visited. From my experience on the Select Committee on Social Services, I know how important this form of education is, particularly in some of the more deprived areas. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is very keen on this. No one, I think, has more knowledge of education than my hon. Friend. He is highly respected not only in the House, but elsewhere and, indeed, in the Province, where he has played a major role in recent times.
I have found this an interesting debate in which to participate as a Member from the mainland of the United Kingdom, but I feel deeply for the problems of Northern Ireland, a troubled part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the constructive and important speech made by the right hon. Member for South Down will bring some positive response from Her Majesty's Government.
10.20 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am not sure that there will be positive response from Her Majesty's Government. There will certainly be positive response from Her Majesty's Opposition. We are grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It was lively, informed and instructive. He referred to the Housing Executive and to a matter that affects education. I shall refer to those subjects in my speech.
I accept that in these debates I play the role of sweeper. I sweep up for all right hon. and hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate. I was particularly interested in and impressed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for his felicitous phrases about the voting of money, the redress of grievances and participation in order to appropriate money. He expressed well-founded regret that the Unionist Members of Parliament, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), are not in their places tonight.
I have less sympathy for some of the reasons that have been given for their absence. They held by-elections a few weeks ago and they won those by-elections. They lost one seat, yet they have deigned not to participate in the proceedings of this House. The right hon. Member for South Down tried to justify that by saying that it was up to them to get their priorities right as between their constituents and their constituencies and the House of Commons. However, in June 1985 the right hon. Member for South Down was quick to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and me for not being here to take part in a short debate on historic churches in Northern Ireland. We were in Northern Ireland at that time, but the right hon. Gentleman said:
"It is no substitute to be absent in the Province when Northern Ireland affairs are debated in this House."—[Official Report, 11 June 1985; Vol. 80, col. 857.]
902
I would not have made great play of that, had it not been stated on a number of occasions tonight that the Unionist Members of Parliament are absent because they are in their constituencies. As elected representatives, their first duty is to the House of Commons and they should take their places here. All right hon. and hon. Members would welcome them back to the House and it is their duty to be here when debates on Northern Ireland take place.
The hon. Member for Stafford referred to a point that was made by the right hon. Member for South Down about the work of the House of Commons in connection with Northern Irish matters—that is, a Grand Committee and a Select Committee. One of the casualties of the Anglo-Irish agreement and of the attitude of the Unionist Members of Parliament to that agreement is the change in the procedures of this House as they relate to Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West referred some time ago to a change in the procedures. This was taken up by the Leader of the Unionist Opposition, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). Consultations were held on an informal basis to find out how we could improve the procedures of this House in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. A casualty of the reaction of the Unionist Members of Parliament to the Anglo-Irish agreement is that those talks have not continued. The sooner that the Unionist Members of Parliament take their places in the Chamber the sooner we shall be able to look at the procedures with a view to modifying them in the interests of debates on subjects that affect Northern Ireland and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
I was also glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). When we discussed the last draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order I spoke after his predecessor, Mr. James Nicholson, who was then the Member of Parliament for Newry and Amargh. I was unable to be in the House when the present Member of Parliament for that constituency made his maiden speech. However, in the parlance of the House, I read it with care in Hansard. I am very glad to see that he has not only continued his involvement in the affairs of this House through his speeches from the Back Benches, but that in his short intervention tonight he has shown care and compassion for the people he seeks to represent, in addition to understanding the wider issues relating to Northern Ireland that are now before us. He referred to education cuts in Northern Ireland, to young people and to the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West. We are, of course, very concerned about education. The cuts in the education budget will lead to 140 teacher redundancies in Northern Ireland, with the loss of 80 teaching posts in Belfast alone. The cuts in nursery schooling come at a time when nursery units need to be expanded and not reduced. The cut in further education in Belfast may lead to up to 100 job losses. Our concern about those cuts leads us to regret all the more the lack of Unionist Members in the Chamber to fight their corner.
The cost-cutting in education that has taken place over the years has led to the degeneration of plant in the Province's schools. The forcing of maintenance cuts and the moratorium on new school building will cost Northern Ireland dearly when major renovation work becomes necessary. Recently, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), told the Irish National Teachers

903
Organisation that the education budget was being increased by £42 million, which represented a 6 per cent. increase. He also stated that spending had remained constant in real terms since 1979 and that spending per primary school pupil had risen by more than 10 per cent.
The first schedule to the order calls for a decrease of £350,000 in the sums for education and library boards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West made great reference to the cuts in that area. Such cuts hardly inspire the Opposition to view the Minister's statements on education with confidence.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield also referred to housing. We are, of course, most concerned at the cuts in housing. I have written to the Minister on the subject and he has replied to questions on the Order Paper. As has been mentioned, the number of planned housing starts has been cut from 1,000 to 850, and the number of planned improvement schemes on public sector estates has been cut from 1,200 to 40. In addition we see the cancellation of 4,500 planned improvement grants and 15,000 repair grants. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for concentrating once more on Belfast, because I know that he would prefer to concentrate on the wider spectrum. but the waiting list in Belfast is 8,255 with 6,582 in urgent need.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield expressed his concern for such issues when he referred to the cut in the housing budget of £44 million in real terms. Earlier my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Warley, West said that the Housing Executive had expected an increase of £50 milion. Thus we are not entirely happy with the figures in the order or with the fact that housing problems are still so great. Indeed, they will continue to be severe for some time to come.
I come to the intervention of the right hon. Member for South Down. After a while hon. Members could almost write each other's speeches. I could perhaps write a fair speech for the right hon. Gentleman on integration, the constitutional position or on the uncertainty, as he would say, of the constitutional future of the people of Northern Ireland. However, I repeat that the way in which business is conducted in the Chamber has been a casualty of the Anglo-Irish agreement. But although the hon. Member for Macclesfield might have agreed with him over the prospect of a more devolved council administration in Northern Ireland, our earlier debate clearly showed that the withdrawal of consent in council chambers had made that less of a possibility.
One other intervention was from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell). He referred to the money given from the state exchequer to Northern Ireland. He said that it was a useful cause. The money given over a period of time bears thinking about. In 1979–80 we gave by way of subvention to Northern Ireland the sum of £944 million, 25·8 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom as a whole it was 0·55 per cent. In 1985–86, the figure has risen to £1,573 million, a quite substantial sum of money to go from our Exchequer to that of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) says, sotto voce, "It certainly is." Many Welsh and Scottish Members wonder why Wales and Scotland cannot be similarly treated. We accept the problems of Northern Ireland, and we do not
904
criticise the Government for putting £1,573 million into the exchequer there, but it is something to take into account; and, without widening the debate, I trust that those who talk wildly of some kind of independence for Ulster will ask themselves where they think that £1,573 million a year is to come from, as they try to develop their plans.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield again, if he does not mind my referring to him, mentioned the Stranmillis school, a point taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend. He pointed out that the school was under threat because a subvention of £10,000 a year would not be made available. According to my information, this school is already over-subscribed, and is to be closed in the face of very high demand. Overall, some 300 nursery places will be lost. So we are grateful that the hon. Member for Macclesfield has picked this up and has added his weight to our concern at the school's imminent closure.
The questions of health were well covered by my right hon. and learned Friend. It is worth repeating, however, that the Government are underfunding in health provision, certainly in regard to the Eastern health board, and that there is something like £2·6 million to be made up in budget cutbacks. At a meeting on 8 November 1985 the board approved the closure of four hospitals. One was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Claremont street neurological hospital. The others are the Haypark geriatric hospital, the Samaritan gynaecological hospital and Templemore avenue geriatric hospital. These closures led to the loss of 200 hospital beds. While we would not wish to reduce the level of the debate to matters of small importance, it is a fact that the cuts have put great strain on the already overcrowded and underfunded Royal Victoria hospital. We echo the concern expressed by the National Union of Public Employees in late January at the conditions found in the kitchens of that hospital, and the need for a major cash injection to maintain adequate health standards.
We have had an interesting and prolonged debate, worthy of the subject, of the people of Northern Ireland, and of this Chamber. It is proper that, notwithstanding the absence of Unionist Members, we are here to defend the cause of the people who live in Northern Ireland, and give a full and thorough airing to the issues which concern them. We look forward to hearing the response of the Minister, to see whether we can reach some agreement on some of the issues discussed, and possibly see some action.
10.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a difficult man to follow when he replies, because in his role as sweeper he sounds increasingly more like a Government Front Bench spokesman than the Government spokesman will sound. It is a pity that his talent will be wasted for so long in that role.
I said that I would not quote Shakespeare, but having listened to the introduction of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), I must say that in some areas
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible, but the debate raises important issues which have been seriously

905
discussed. If I miss a point, I assure hon. Members that either my hon. Friend the Minister or I will write to them with the details.
The public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 9702, published on 15 January 1986, puts forward planned increases in public expenditure in Northern Ireland of 12·5 per cent. between 1985–86 and 1988–89. The equivalent figure for the remainder of the United Kingdom is 11 per cent. We accept the need to maintain high levels of public expenditure in Northern Ireland because of the genuine difficulties and problems that exist there.
In 1983–84–-the latest figures available—per capita public expenditure in Northern Ireland was £2,461, in Scotland £2,058, in Wales £1,861 and in England £1,632.
I am sure that the right and learned gentleman will agree that we fully accept the importance of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, and our plans will continue to reflect that. However, we must continue to consider value for money on behalf of taxpayers.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about problems in housing. We are to some extent the victims of our own success. During the past few years our record on housing in Northern Ireland has been admirable. We have made massive strides to improve the housing stock. I regret as much as anybody the problems that we now face with the budget and the spending levels that we hoped, but unfortunately failed to maintain. The reason is that law and order has top priority in the budget, followed by industry and employment, especially employment, and expenditure under those two heads has increased.
The figures for public expenditure per head on housing for 1986–87, although not exactly comparable, are £59 for England, £125 for Scotland, £50 for Wales and £225 for Northern Ireland. I accept that loan charges take a considerable amount of that, and that receipts from council house sales have not been as great as we hoped. That necessarily affects the position. The urban renewal regulation, which provides European Community assistance, has come to an end, and Government support for housing is £2 million less this year than last year. Nevertheless, we continue to spend significant funds.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister refers to the falling off of house sales. Does he agree that that is because the movement began much earlier in Northern Ireland, attained wider dimensions earlier, and subsequently the scope for it may be approaching exhaustion?
Mr. Needham: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. We have been working on the figures that the Housing Executive hoped to achieve for receipts. As it is the expert in that area, the Government accepted those figures. When they were not reached, the Government could only make up the difference with additional funds from the Northern Ireland block. He will appreciate that that has not been possible, for the reasons that I gave, but he is absolutely right.
The Government can he legitimately proud of their policy towards spending on housing in Northern Ireland in view of the two budget blocks I have mentioned. We have maintained it as a priority, and we are determined to keep it as high as we possibly can.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West mentioned social security reforms, Eileen Evason and the difficulty that we will face in Northern Ireland with single payments. I do not think that Miss Evason's figures are
906
more than speculative, but it is difficult for us to get the figures exactly right. Nevertheless, our figures show that, excluding the impact of the social fund, because in Northern Ireland there is a much larger number of families with children and a rather lower percentage of pensioners, the outcome, after implementation of the social security review, would be about even. That does not take into account the effects of the social fund. All that I can say is that this matter has not yet been decided, but we will obviously try to keep as much flexibility as possible.
I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the hard-nosedness of social security benefit officers and how they use their discretion and sense. I echo his sentiments. I recently had the opportunity to listen to the views of the main managers of the social security offices. I am sure that they make single payments in the most efficient and sensible way. When we introduce the social fund, we will try to keep it as flexible as possible. I am sure that the House agrees that the present method of applying single payments is immensely complex for those who administer it and for those who receive it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about education cuts. Before I refer to the problems facing the area boards, I should like to remind the House of the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The 1986–87 education budget of £662 million was an increase of £42 million, which is more than 6 per cent. above this year's outturn, when, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, school rolls will continue to decline. Some £15 million of this increase—approaching 7 per cent.—will go to area boards to recount capital budgets.
I can understand that, despite this increase, there is considerable pressure on the current budgets of the boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who has responsibility for education, will meet several board deputations this week. I must emphasise that none of the measures that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to have yet been formally submitted to the Department of Education. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
I have considered the closure of nursery schools, but I assure the House that any such proposals would require the approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, and he would have regard to any objections put to him as well as to any recommendations made to him by the boards.
I cannot accept the comments of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to the effect that the Royal Victoria hospital is under-funded. I have heard much about this hospital, but I can honestly say that I have never before been told that one of it its major problems is under-funding. I can accept an argument about the use of resources, but it is difficult to argue that it is under-funded, especially when one considers the amount of money that it has and the value for money that it gives to patients.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West knows, expenditure on the Health Service in Northern Ireland is 25 per cent. per head higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have 50 per cent. more nurses than in the United Kingdom. I am not suggesting for one moment that there are not strong reasons for that, but those are the facts. We also have more general practitioners as a percentage of the population. We have a Health Service of which we can be proud, but, under the strategic guidelines, which I have tried to make widely available,

907
it is right to move towards greater emphasis on care in the community and preventive care, and slightly less emphasis on acute medicine, of which we have a higher level of provision than in England and Wales, although waiting lists are just as long. It is extremely important to get the strategic guidelines right, to get the Health Service behind us in what we are trying to achieve and to ensure that we are getting the best value for money.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) knows a great deal more about this subject than I know, and I have followed his writings on the subject closely. I am trying to ensure that we get the maximum of involvement and participation in the Health Service. It cannot be said, however, that there is too little cash in Northern Ireland. There must be careful reorganisation with the maximum consultation and involvement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked me to give the Government's view about the constitutional point raised by the right hon. Member for South Down. I would not bandy words with the right hon. Gentleman on constitutional matters in the Chamber or outside. I listened carefully to what he said. Following the meeting with the leaders of the two Unionist parties last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered consultation with the Unionists on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly and on arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business in Parliament. It is important that we get back to negotiations on that issue and on wider issues, which I shall not go into as I should be out of order.
The right hon. Member for South Down talked of the Comptroller and Auditor General's work. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I endorse everything that he said. I assure him that when reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General come to the Department of Health or the Environment Department, in which I have an interest, I make absolutely certain that they are considered and acted upon as quickly as possible. As long as I have anything to do with it, I assure him that that will continue.
I cannot comment on much of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said, except that I agreed with most of it.
I shall move on smartly to the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who is becoming a more than adequate number three batsman who seems to be playing the bowling at hourly intervals. I have some personal interest in milk quotas as my constituency has a farming make-up similar to many parts of Northern Ireland, and I can understand the problems that farmers face. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Lyell are doing what they can. Under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, they have concluded that an additional 50 million litres of quota should be sought for reallocation to exceptional hardship cases, small producers and special cases in Northern Ireland. I tried to work that out in the number of cows and got a nought in the wrong place. I am told that it is not 1,000 cows, but 10,000.
There has been much consideration over recent months of the Commission's proposal to introduce a Community outgoers scheme and of the fact that it may provide the
908
means of fulfilling the objectives set out by the Howe Committee. My colleagues, the Secretary of State and the Minister, have been ensuring that the views of Northern Ireland industry are taken into account during the United Kingdom discussions on the proposed scheme.
The point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on education and training for the handicapped is an issue in which my hon. Friend the Minister is involved and is aware of. He will be writing to the hon. Gentleman in detail about it. No decision has yet been made on Enterprise Ulster, and my hon. Friend the Minister is receiving deputations, having meetings and discussing its future.
I was alarmed to hear the views of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on what is happening in planned maintenance, and even more alarmed when I saw one of my hon. Friends nodding his agreement. As for my nodding in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, I should say that I was known as nodding Needham at school. It does not necessarily mean that I agree with him. I shall obviously take this matter up with the chairman of the Housing Executive. I was of the opinion that we may not be able to do as much as was hoped for but I trusted that we would do what we did as well as possible.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister has been good enough to place this emphasis on the matter. May I offer a lead? I think that the supervision by the Housing Executive of the execution of contracts is very often lacking in effectiveness.
Mr. Needham: That is certainly a subject that I shall take up with the Housing Executive. I will report to the right hon. Gentleman when I have done so.
On the constituency point of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, which ended up not as a constituency point, if it has taken three goes to get his 184 houses changed from gas to coal-fired under the existing maintenance system, one shudders to think that he may be right about any future maintenance system. I think that that is rather a separate and special point. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I come back to him on it. I am aware of the problem, as he knows.
Mr. Mallon: My goes have not solved the problem. I would like the Under-Secretary to take action before the fourth go at it and more money is poured down the drain.
Mr. Needham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in favour of pouring money down anybody's drain.
Mr. Bell: Or up the chimney.
Mr. Needham: Or up the chimney. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping the Front Bench, even with the jokes.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about the blind. I am aware of the case to which he referred or from which I believe his interest came. There are other methods by which people can be helped to obtain assistance through the courts, depending on their individual cases. Certainly, it is an issue that I shall consider.
I hope that I have covered the points raised by hon. Members.
Finally, I refer to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on rehabilitation versus rebuild.

909
I am convinced that it is right to rehab, as it is sexily called, where possible, but I should point out that there are cases where it makes much more sense, because of the size of the houses, their condition and the expense that would be incurred in rehabilitation, to knock them down and replace them. I think that my hon. Friend will agree, having visited the Province, as I know he has, and having looked at many of the new housing schemes in Northern Ireland, that we have done a good job in the replanning of layouts and finding additional space for people to live in.
I have got through my first winding-up speech on an appropriation order. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I am distressed that some of our colleagues from Northern Ireland are not present, but we have had a debate that demonstrates the importance of Northern Ireland affairs and that we cover them carefully and considerately.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
910
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Whitney.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  AIRPORTS BILL
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Airports Bill, it is expedient to authorise the levying of annual charges on airport operators in respect of the expenses of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in connection with references made to it under that Act.—[Mr. Ancram.]

  Housing (Livingston)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of serious and growing concern to my constituents—the forward housing programme of Livingston development corporation. On the whole, I do not quarrel with the priorities of the corporation, and usually agree with the judgments that it makes within the resources available to it. My point, for which the Government must take full responsibility, is that its resources are not adequate to do the job that if faces.
  There are two separate issues. The first is the amount of capital allocation available to LDC to tackle the upgrading of the existing housing stock. The second is the Government's ban on general needs building by the new towns, including the LDC. The two are linked, as, were that ban to be lifted, the new towns would require an even more generous capital allocation than they need for the upgrading of existing stock. Both cases stand on their own merit, so I shall address myself to them as separate issues.
  This debate, and my application for it, were prompted by the reduction in the capital allocation for the LDC in the forthcoming year. For the current year, it received £2–4 million net capital allocation for housing purposes. Next year, it will receive only £1·7 million, which is effectively a reduction of one third in real terms. It is difficult for those of us who know and seek to grapple with the housing problems of Livingston, to understand what possible basis there could be in the reality on the ground for that reduction in the net capital allocation for LDC.
  Livingston, by its nature, has a large number of houses that were built in the 1960s, when system building was extremely fashionable among architects. Those houses have proved inappropriate wherever they have been built, but they have proved particularly inappropriate in Livingston, which is on an exposed hillside in Scotland, 500 ft above sea level. Some aspects of the housing stock desperately needs urgent attention if it is to provide acceptable housing into the 21st century, and if it is to stop deteriorating before the 20th century comes to an end.
  First, a large number of houses have flat roofs. Unfortunately, in the 1960s, architects forgot that flat roofs do not allow the rainwater to run off. I have constituents who have reported 14 or 15 times that their roofs are leaking. To be fair to the LDC, quite often the tenants have been visited 14 or 15 times, and have had more patches put on the fiat roof above them. That is no solution. The only solution to the problem faced by the tenants and the LDC is to provide the houses with proper pitched roofs. If the rain does not get in through the roof, it gets in through the Bison cladding. The Minister will be familiar with the problems of Bison-built houses, and he will be aware that where such buildings are in an exposed position, as in Livingston, the case is as strong as anywhere else for urgent treatment of that form of building.
  My next point concerns the provision of the heating systems in those houses. Unfortunately, many of the houses were built at a time when architects blithely
  912
  assumed that energy, and particularly electricity, would be cheap indefinitely. They therefore built houses that were cheap on insulation, and which are now expensive to run.
  A number of houses in Livingston are recognised by the DHSS as exceptionally hard to heat houses. The LDC, to its credit, perfectly properly wants to replace the heating systems in those houses and provide heating systems that the tenants can once again afford. That is a matter of concern not only to the tenant but to the landlord as, while the houses are not heated, they deteriorate as a result of the familiar problems of condensation.
  In addition to all these problems with the existing housing stock, there is the further quite distinctive issue of the upgrading programme for Knightsridge 4. I will not weary the Minister with the details of that tonight, as he was good enough to meet me and the local councillor, Maureen Ryce, a fortnight ago and we much appreciate the fact that since then he has been able to make a decision approving that upgrading programme.
  That upgrading programme alone requires a capital expenditure of £3·6 million spread over two years. Therefore there will be an annual expenditure of £1·8 million. That figure compares to the total net capital allocation for Livingston for the current year of £1·7 million. In other words, that project alone would swallow up the entire net capital allocation. If we add the other expenditure to which I have referred, Livingston requires and can readily absorb a net capital allocation some two or three times the figure that has been offered for the current year.
  The Minister could perfectly properly argue that the net capital allocation is not the sole capital resource available to Livingston. The LDC can also apply to capital expenditure the receipts that it obtains from the sale of houses. The fact is, however, that those receipts are on a declining profile. We are over the hump in public sector housing sales. In Livingston in the past year there has been a marked reduction in interest in purchases of corporation houses. That is not surprising, since more than half the tenants in Livingston are on housing benefit and are not in a position to purchase their houses. There is bound to be finite point to the demand for council house sales and we appear to be approaching that point.
  It is possible that the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the House, will stimulate a fresh wave of applications for purchase, should it complete its passage. That, however, will be a one-off effect. The LDC expects that its receipts from house sales will decline from £2·5 million in the current year to £1·1 million in 1990. That estimate was prepared by a development corporation which takes no view on the rights or wrongs of selling public housing and which has proved itself willing and energetic in marketing the sale of such houses. That corporation nevertheless expects to be able to achieve only a declining revenue from the sale of its houses.
  In other words, the LDC is faced with a declining capital revenue from the sale of its housing stock and a declining net capital allocation from the Scottish Office. On that basis, it is impossible for the LDC to tackle the grave housing problems that it has inherited. In the immediate future that means that it does not have enough resources to meet committed expenditure in the coming financial year. In the longer term, it means that some of my constituents will continue to live with flat roofs, with Bison-clad buildings and with heating that is too expensive for them to use, until beyond the year 2000 on the present

  913
  resources available to LDC. That is the situation in a housing authority for which the Secretary of State is directly responsible.
  It would not require resources beyond the bounds of imagination to tackle the problems at Livinston. The capital programme of the LDC in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, was double the capital programme in the current financial year. Moreover, none of that expenditure was financed by sales of the housing stock.
  I do not expect miracles. I do not expect the Under-Secretary of State to be able to return us to those halcyon days and the expenditure of 1978–79. I do not think that he has brought his cheque book with him. However, I ask him to give serious and sympathetic consideration to the representations from LDC and to look at them with a genuinely open mind. The hon. Gentleman has been willing—I appreciate this—to recognise the problems in the Knightsridge 4 area of Livingston. He has been prepared to admit that there is a case for expenditure. I put it to him that having recognised those problems, he must now will the means to tackle them.
  I am concerned also about the ban imposed by the Scottish Office on construction of general needs housing in the new towns. That ban was imposed by the Minister's predecessor three years ago. Since then, no general needs housing has been started in Livingston or in any other Scottish new town. The hardship caused by that moratorium has become increasingly evident during those three years.
  When I was first elected to the seat of Livingston and went to my surgeries there, I had few, if any, cases of people coming to me who were not able to obtain rehousing. I have to admit that it made a refreshing contrast to my previous constituency in central Edinburgh where such cases were the stock in trade of my surgery. However, over the three years, first a steady trickle and now a steady stream of people have come to my surgeries unable to obtain the housing that they urgently and desperately need. I share that experience with local councillors. Yesterday, West Lothian district council carried a resolution requesting the Scottish Office to lift the moratorium on the construction of general needs housing in Livingston, precisely because of the experience of local councillors in finding an increasing number of constituents coming to them whom they could not assist.
  To understand the pressure on the waiting list, it is necessary to remember that Livingston is a new town which has been constructed over the past 20 years. We now have a large number of second generation residents reaching their 20s, getting married and understandably seeking a house in which they can set up their family home. Forty six per cent. of the applicants on the LDC's waiting list are under 25. The houses are just not there for them. The waiting list grew steadily until December 1984 when the LDC decided, perhaps understandably, that it would have to close the waiting list, except for priority cases. Even so, the average waiting time lengthened dramatically during the subsequent 18 months. The average time that must elapse before a first offer can be made exceeds a year. Many people on that waiting list cannot afford to wait a year. One hundred applicants a year involve cases where families have split up, often in desperate circumstances, occasionally in violent circumstances.
  914
  Bluntly, LDC is caught between the twin pressures of diminishing housing stock from the sales and an increasing demand from the new generation reaching maturity and seeking a family home of their own. The only way out of those conflicting pressures is a building programme of general needs housing. I am not asking for a massive programme. I am not seeking an enormous new estate. I am asking for LDC to have the flexibility to provide a steady responsible programme of perhaps 200 houses a year.
  Some private sector house starts are being carried out in Livingston, and it is welcome, but they do not match the needs of the local community. In the past seven years, the average number of starts in Livingston by the private sector has been 137. It is estimated that we require 350 homes a year. Moreover, the people buying those houses come overwhelmingly from outside the new town. They are attracted by houses in an attractive, modern environment and are welcome to the new town. However, the houses constructed by the private sector do not and cannot meet the needs of the young couples of Livingston who cannot afford to purchase them.
  I hope the Minister will agree that I have put my case in a rational, reasoned and dispassionate manner. I ask him in return to give a reasoned and dispassionate response to my case for lifting the moratorium, but I do not want him to give an instant response tonight if it will be no. He will have adequate opportunity to respond. The five district councils representing Scottish new towns have formed a joint forum which has been examining, among other issues, the housing needs of the new towns. The unanimous view of those councils is that the moratorium should be lifted, and they wR11 be placing a report before the Minister within a couple of months.
  I hope that when he receives that report, he will reflect on my remarks tonight and will, in the light of the evidence that they and I have given, be willing to consider lifting the moratorium. By definition, a moratorium should be only a temporary pause. I hope the Minister will agree, when he receives the report from the five councils, that the time for lifting the moratorium is long overdue.
  11.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the housing responsibilities of the Scottish new towns. Their achievements in housing generally have been rather eclipsed by their well-publicised and well-merited achievements in industrial promotion and development. We are all aware of Livingston's success and its pre-eminence in high-tech development, with companies such as Damon Biotech, NEC, Burr Brown, Shin-Etsu Handotai and many others which have decided to "make it in Livingston."
  While the solid achievements of the development corporations in housing have not had the same public focus, their role in housing is important. It is inextricably linked to the successful overall development of the new towns, and the new towns have been alive to the interaction between their social and economic objectives.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, Livingston has grown substantially. It is now the largest community in Lothian region, outside Edinburgh. Since its inception, the development corporation has built over 12,000 houses at an historic cost to the public purse of£92 million. The hon.

  915
  Gentleman referred to the contribution of private enterprise. That has been an increasing contribution, in Livingston as elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman dealt at length with the current restrictions on corporation house-building for general rental needs. As he said, the restrictions were imposed by my predecessor in 1983 to stimulate private housing development in the new towns to improve housing choice and social balance. At the same time, the Government encouraged the corporations to introduce positive measures to increase the supply of and demand for low-cost homes for purchase.
  Through agreements between the corporations and private builders, a growing amount of relatively low-cost housing for single people—the hon. Gentleman referred in particular to young couples—is now coming on stream. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome, for example, the shared equity schemes that have been introduced in Livingston and elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman said that corporations might feel that now was the time to reintroduce a limited programme of general needs building by the Scottish newtowns. I emphasise that I would be willing to consider a case based on genuine housing need, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be examining carefully the corporations' submissions. In relation to Livingston in a submission to my Department the development corporation has made it clear that it sees no need at present for a major general needs programme. I invite the hon. Gentleman to rely on the corporation's own assessment of its housing needs and priorities.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to the importance of the gross allocation figure, which reflects not only the net allocation but also sales to sitting tenants. That is an area where Livingston has been particularly successful. It has sold over 1,700 houses to its tenants. That is evidence of the attractiveness of Livingston as a place to live. Of course, sales of public housing are important not only because of income. They help to foster a sense of pride and permanence in the community. The income has been important to the corporations which have been able to apply it to their rehabilitation programmes, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and to their special needs programmes. In Livingston, for example, sales over the past six years have financed nearly £17 million of new investment.
  I accept that future sales cannot be predicted with certainty, but in Livingston's case we have provided some flexibility by setting a sales receipts target for 1986–87 which is lower than is likely to be achieved in the current year, thus accepting the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the trend of sales.
  On the Housing (Scotland) Bill the hon. Gentleman was right to point to the possible significant boost to sales following the relaxation of the cost floor. Hon. Members will recall that, under the current rules, which apply to homes first let after May 1975, if the discount to which a tenant would otherwise be entitled brings the selling price of the house below the outstanding debt on the property, discount is restricted so that the house is sold at the lower of either the outstanding debt or the market value. Clause 3(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Bill brings forward the date after which discount restrictions may apply to 31
  916
  December 1978. The general effect is to ensure that tenants of houses first let before 31 December 1978 will benefit from their full discount entitlement.
  I am now permitting new town development corporations to operate the revised cost floor in respect of unmodernised houses on a voluntary basis in advance of the Bill's enactment. The impact of the voluntary consent is likely to be considerable. The vast majority of tenants in the 11,600 or more houses built in the five Scottish new towns between 1975 and 1978 will stand to benefit from the voluntary consent in now being able to purchase their homes with the benefit of their full discount entitlement. Livingston alone has some 4,000 houses in that category. In cases where the houses have not been significantly modernised since 1978, the tenants will have the opportunity to benefit straight away from improved sales terms.
  I fully expect that the early application of the legislative changes will give an appreciable boost to sales over the next few months. In Livingston's case it will help ensure that the corporation achieves its target to self-finance about 60 per cent. of its gross programme involving £4·2 million for 1986–87, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  The main components of the corporation's housing programme are the provision of special needs housing and the rehabilitation of rented stock. Relatively little special needs housing was built in Livingston in its early years because the town's youthful population structure meant that elderly and disabled groups were under-represented in the town.
  However, the corporation has recognised that, as the population structure ages, the demand for specially adapted housing will increase. The hon. Gentleman will know that the corporation let the first of its contracts for wheelchair-adapted houses in 1984, in three areas of the town, and a further scheme for 31 special needs houses is due for completion in August 1987.
  Improvements to rental stock, to which the hon. Member for Livingston has referred, comprised the major part of Livingston's housing programme. Over the past four years—I must emphasise this to the House—nearly £12 million has been invested in capital repairs and rehabilitation. About £3·8 million will be spent in the coming year.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to the fact that the need for resources for modernisation is related to the age of the housing stock. Some 64 per cent. of Livingston's housing stock has been built since 1970. That is a high figure compared with the local authority sector, so the stock has suffered relatively little of the obsolescence affecting most housing authorities.
  In 1983–84, the latest year for which figures are available, the allocation was £384 per house in Livingston, compared with £353 per local authority house in Scotland. Those figures put Livingston's needs into perspective. I recognise that there are problems and areas that could be improved. Schemes have been proposed for those areas. The resources allocated in recent years have enabled the development corporation to carry through a substantial programme of work.
  Since 1982, more than 1,000 houses have been modernised; 7,700 have been insulated; 5,600 houses have had new fixtures and fittings and more than 3,000 houses have had obsolescent heating systems replaced. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the pace of repairs has

  917
  been rapid. The resources available have enabled large-scale schemes to be carried out, which leaves less to be done in the future.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that my Department approved last year a major house remodelling and refurbishment project in the Craigshill area of Livingston. That involved 119 houses and cost more than £1·8 million. Last week I gave approval in principle—the hon. Gentleman has referred to this scheme—to the physical remodelling of 427 houses in the Knightsridge area. That project will cost £3·2 million. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and to the local councillor, for coming to see me to detail their concern about Knightsridge. I wish the tenants, who have been very involved in the scheme, every success.
  These substantial projects are being funded from the gross allocation made to Livingston development corporation. Against this background, I must say to the
  918
  hon. Gentleman that the suggestion that resources are niggardly—against a background of public expenditure restraint—does seem wide of the mark.
  For 1986–87, the provisional gross allocation of £4·2 million for new investment will allow for new special needs housing and for the modernisation of about 2,500 units of Livingston's rental stock. Of course, there may be additional receipts as a result of the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
  Resources are limited and I know that the corporation would have liked more, but I hope that the House will agree that Livingston development corporation is getting a fair share of the available resources for public expenditure on housing in Scotland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Disabled Persons (Services, Representations and Consultations) Bill
  Disabled Persons (Services, Representations and Consultations) Bill
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Lord Chancellor
  Lord Chancellor
WALES
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Perinatal Deaths
  Perinatal Deaths
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Health Authorities (Minutes of Meetings)
  Health Authorities (Minutes of Meetings)
  Bereavement Counselling Service
  Bereavement Counselling Service
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Teachers Panel
  Burnham Teachers Panel
  European Studies (Great Britain and Ireland)
  European Studies (Great Britain and Ireland)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios and Class Sizes
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios and Class Sizes
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Value Added and Data Services
  Value Added and Data Services
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
  Computer Modems (West Midlands)
  Computer Modems (West Midlands)
  Airbus
  Airbus
  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit
  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit
  Matthew Brown plc
  Matthew Brown plc
  Fireworks (Injuries)
  Fireworks (Injuries)
  General Motors (Imports)
  General Motors (Imports)
  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.
  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ealing Vicarage (Rape)
  Ealing Vicarage (Rape)
  Prisons (Mortality)
  Prisons (Mortality)
  Glen Parva Youth Custody Centre
  Glen Parva Youth Custody Centre
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Rape
  Rape
  Featherstone Prison
  Featherstone Prison
  Local Radio
  Local Radio
  Marriage Services (Offences)
  Marriage Services (Offences)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Medium-range Missiles
  Medium-range Missiles
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Materials (Export Ban)
  Nuclear Materials (Export Ban)
  Embassy Staff
  Embassy Staff
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Wider Opportunities Training Scheme
  Wider Opportunities Training Scheme
  Deregulation Unit
  Deregulation Unit
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Beer, Wines and Spirits
  Beer, Wines and Spirits
  Nuclear Submarine Bases
  Nuclear Submarine Bases
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
TRANSPORT
  Western Isles (Rescue Helicopter)
  Western Isles (Rescue Helicopter)
  Lorries (Overloading)
  Lorries (Overloading)
  M1-M25 (Congestion)
  M1-M25 (Congestion)
  Temporary Spare Wheels
  Temporary Spare Wheels
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  A23 Warninglid-Brighton (Inquiry)
  A23 Warninglid-Brighton (Inquiry)
  Shipping Statistics
  Shipping Statistics
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
ENERGY
  Alternative Energy Sources
  Alternative Energy Sources
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Central America
  Central America
SCOTLAND
  Wines, Spirits, Beer and Tobacco
  Wines, Spirits, Beer and Tobacco
  Macaulay Institute for Soil Research
  Macaulay Institute for Soil Research
  Cancer (Dunoon)
  Cancer (Dunoon)
DEFENCE
  Nimrod
  Nimrod
  Trident
  Trident
  RAF Trainer Aircraft
  RAF Trainer Aircraft
  Saudi Arabia (Aerospace Contract)
  Saudi Arabia (Aerospace Contract)
  Defence Programme (Costings)
  Defence Programme (Costings)
  RIMPAC Naval Exercise
  RIMPAC Naval Exercise
  Western Europe (Missile Defence System)
  Western Europe (Missile Defence System)
  King Vessels
  King Vessels
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Reservists (Military Training)
  Reservists (Military Training)
  European Fighter Programme
  European Fighter Programme
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Turkish Prime Minister
  Turkish Prime Minister
  Defence Sales
  Defence Sales
  British Payload Specialist
  British Payload Specialist
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Supersonic VSTOL Aircraft
  Supersonic VSTOL Aircraft
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Small Firms (Tendering)
  Small Firms (Tendering)
  Type 23 Frigates
  Type 23 Frigates
  Nuclear Warheads
  Nuclear Warheads
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Cruise Missiles (RAF Molesworth)
  Cruise Missiles (RAF Molesworth)
  Ballistic Theatre Missile Defences
  Ballistic Theatre Missile Defences
  Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  BP Shipping Co. Ltd. (Tankers)
  BP Shipping Co. Ltd. (Tankers)
  Holy Loch
  Holy Loch
ENVIRONMENT
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Norwegian Environment Minister (Visit)
  Norwegian Environment Minister (Visit)
  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Natterjack Toad
  Natterjack Toad
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Canary Wharf
  Canary Wharf
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  London Borough Grant Scheme
  London Borough Grant Scheme
  Consent Applications
  Consent Applications
  Local Authorities (Grants)
  Local Authorities (Grants)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Farm Prices
  Farm Prices
  Spending Trends
  Spending Trends
  EC (Expenditure)
  EC (Expenditure)
  Waste Dumping (River Tyne)
  Waste Dumping (River Tyne)
  Broilermeat and Chickenmeat
  Broilermeat and Chickenmeat
  Frozen Chickens (Imports)
  Frozen Chickens (Imports)
  EC (Farm Statistics)
  EC (Farm Statistics)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Intervention Stores
  Intervention Stores
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Wines, Spirits, Beer and Tobacco
  Wines, Spirits, Beer and Tobacco
  Contraceptives (Minors)
  Contraceptives (Minors)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Administration (Staffing)
  Administration (Staffing)
  NHS (Drug Purchasing)
  NHS (Drug Purchasing)
  Departmental Office, Bloomsbury
  Departmental Office, Bloomsbury
  Taste and Smell Mechanism
  Taste and Smell Mechanism
  Ageusic Anosmic
  Ageusic Anosmic
  Residential Care (Supplementary Benefit)
  Residential Care (Supplementary Benefit)
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Infertility
  Infertility
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Conception Statistics
  Conception Statistics
  Pelvic Inflammatory Diseases
  Pelvic Inflammatory Diseases
  Leeds Western Health Authority
  Leeds Western Health Authority
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Genito-Urinary Treatment
  Genito-Urinary Treatment
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Building Industry (VAT)
  Building Industry (VAT)
  Wines and Spirits, Beer and Tobacco
  Wines and Spirits, Beer and Tobacco
  Lump Sum Payments
  Lump Sum Payments
  Glynn Valley (Tree Felling)
  Glynn Valley (Tree Felling)
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Mr. R. H. Hoyle
  Mr. R. H. Hoyle
  Civil Service Contributory Pension
  Civil Service Contributory Pension

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

Offshore Fuel Industries: Training Courses
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandys, who cannot be here today owing to illness, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to improve the training and skills of those employed in the offshore oil and gas industries.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board provides courses for a wide spectrum of training needs offshore. This is put into effect through industry training associations as well as through the more traditional establishments such as the Robert Gordon Institute of Technology. The Department of Energy has issued guide notes on the training of various safety specialists.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which is very satisfactory. Is he satisfied that the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board is working effectively with the operators and their contractors and that, on safety and survival training, sufficient numbers are passing through the courses available?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can answer that quite briefly, inasmuch as the department is satisfied that those measures are working effectively. My noble friend will recall that as a result of the Offshore Safety Report by the Burgoyne Committee in 1980 the Department of Energy appointed an inspector on part-time duties to monitor the safety regimes needed and offered industry-wide offshore. That inspector is an assessor for the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board and also for the Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Training Board, both of which he supervises.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in North Sea operations more graduates are needed with science qualifications? Will the Government do more to encourage the production of graduates with such qualification; for example, in geology and petroleum engineering?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Government are doing their utmost to encourage postgraduate courses in those subjects. Indeed, there is an added incentive. It may be of interest to my noble friend to
502
know the Department of Energy itself has difficulty in obtaining geologists and geophysicists because of the attractive terms offered by the oil industry.
Lord Annan: My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean when he says that the Government are doing their utmost to encourage university graduates?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science has made known on many occasions the facilities that exist for engineering students, and through that medium the Government have expressed themselves in the hope that more students will select engineering for their professional career.

"Buy British": Promotion Campaign
2.39 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 active support is being given to the "Think British" and "Better Made in Britain" campaigns.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister chaired a seminar organised by the "Better Made in Britain" campaign last month. My noble friend Lord Young of Graffham is to open the third "Better Made in Britain" exhibition on 25th March. The "Think British" campaign is discussing with the Department of Trade and Industry ways of promoting British goods which are of good quality and well designed.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that quite encouraging Answer. Does he agree that import substitution is just as conducive to job creation as exports? Her Majesty's Government, through the BOTB, give support to British exporters. Can they not devise a scheme financially to support United Kingdom-based exhibitions such as the "Better Made in Britain" exhibition?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, indeed; import substitution is a valuable aim, just as much as exports. However, the Government have to remember that by reason of our obligations under the Treaty of Rome (I think that it is Article 30) we have to be careful when giving financial support to such action.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that nationalised industries buy British to the extent of over 90 per cent., and that businesses which have now been privatised recognise no similar commitment? Does that cause him concern?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can confirm that 90 per cent. of the goods and services bought by the Government in any case are from United Kingdom sources. As to the purchasing policies of recently privatised companies, that must be a matter for them. One would hope that British companies can and will produce satisfactory goods for them to buy.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Government think "British best" and "Better Made in Britain"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I am seriously suggesting that. I would certainly say that to the noble Lord.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the emphasis of the "Think British" campaign on the careful analysis of what is available before choice is made is a discipline upon British industry to raise its standards, and that under the leadership of the chairman, now Mr. David Jacob, that positive contribution to our thinking has been very important indeed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord. I am also aware that he is a member of, I think it is, the council of the "Think British" campaign. We would agree entirely with what he said.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the previous Labour Government there was initiated a similar campaign of buying British led by none other than Mr. Robert Maxwell, who is well known, I gather, as a newspaper proprietor? Is he further aware that it came to absolutely nothing for the simple reason that the weakness of British industry at that time—I hope that there has since been a great improvement—was delivery dates and quality of spares? Would he care to say something about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble Lord says about the origins of this campaign. At the end of the day, so long as British industry can produce goods at a price and of a specification that people want, which it is now in a very good position to be able to do, then people should think carefully before choosing foreign imports.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Britain is importing 31.5 per cent. of the GDP? Can he say how that compares with imports by Germany, the United States and Japan? Has he done a survey of the car parks at the Houses of Parliament? If so, he will know that comparatively few Peers or Members of Parliament are buying British goods and British cars. Is there anything that we can do on that front?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, I am afraid that I do not have comparative figures of imports by other countries. As to motor cars, my noble friend will no doubt be aware that the import penetration of the private car market is something over 50 per cent. at the moment. It is obviously up to British manufacturers to produce cars that people want to buy. At the end of the day, it must be for people to decide how to spend their own money and not be dictated to by the Government. In any case, the Government are in no position to do that dictating.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the "Think British" campaign would be considerably encouraged if the Government gave
504
some evidence that they themselves were thinking British, bearing in mind that they have a duty, not to a particular section in Britain but to the entire British population, to think British and, if possible, to prefer British?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already answered, I believe, the question that the noble Lord put to me in saying that government purchases are 90 per cent. British. If the noble Lord is trying to imply that overseas companies which manufacture goods in Britain are not welcome here, he should think again.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the growing and horrendous imbalance of trade in computers and peripherals? Will the Government take steps to encourage the manufacture of high technology equipment in the United Kingdom by Japanese and American manufacturers? Will they also encourage nationalised industries and local authorities to look at the manufactures of those foreign companies where the goods concerned are made in Britain with equal favour to those made by British companies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has, I believe, a good point. As to how I should go about it, I am not sure, but certainly I take note of what the noble Lord says.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider whether we should not be reversing a bad habit of ours of splendidly inventing things and then failing to develop them? Should we not be helping those particular lines where we now have a powerful lead? One is the building of small airships and another the development of hot sulphur batteries. In those lines, we have a lead in the world. Surely those are the directions in which we should be pushing. Can the noble Lord make any comment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks me a couple of specific questions which at the moment I am afraid I cannot answer. I would, however, say in general terms that the development and production of a range of goods receive quite a lot of support from the Government.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a great deal of future development, if it is to be successful, needs to be on a European scale and that a narrowly nationalistic approach to it will not help us in the longer run?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that I have not tried to be totally nationalistic in my approach to this Question. I have said that we would wish, obviously, to encourage people to buy British where the product is competitive, where it is priced right and where the quality is up to scratch. But, as I have already said, it is up to people to spend their money how they wish. If they happen to choose British goods, the more the better.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not so easy to distinguish articles when you are buying British? For instance, I bought some sound equipment recently from a well-known

505
British firm—at least, its name was that of a British firm—and then found that it was manufactured in Singapore or Hong Kong.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very good point. So far as the promotion of British goods is concerned, the "Think British" campaign has, I gather, a label which can be attached to goods. Noble Lords should also look out for articles with the Design Council label on them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, has the noble Lord given further thought to ways in which major purchasers can assist their suppliers to become more competitive and therefore to replace imported goods?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is indeed a matter to which the Government give thought. That is why we are in close touch with both organisations, the "Better Made in Britain" campaign and the "Think British" campaign.

Sexual Assault and Rape: Reporting Procedures
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: 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 any suitable alterations to procedures are being considered to enable victims of sexual assault and rape to report the circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we are very aware of the anguish generated by these awful offences, and we are concerned to do everything possible to meet the needs of victims. The whole House will have been shocked by the appalling cases which have occurred recently. The Women's National Commission recently published a most valuable report on violence against women, and the Home Office is currently discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers, in the light of that report, what further scope there may be for improving police procedures in dealing with such crimes.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that within the metropolitan district there are set aside two special units for reception of those who have been raped, one at Hendon and one at Brentford? Furthermore, two more units, one at Barkingside and one at Shooters Hill, are to be opened this year and four more are to be opened next year within the metropolitan area. All women who go to the special units will be seen, if possible, almost exclusively by women, from detectives and police officers to doctors. If the rape victims know this, perhaps they will be more willing to report to the local police station.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making those useful points. She is quite right. As she says, there are two units, one at Hendon and one at Brentford, and a further six units are planned. As regards the question of interviews, my noble friend is quite right, and hopefully this will result in more cases being reported.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are talking today almost as though we accept this crime as some form of growth industry? Questions about the incidence of this particularly revolting crime have been raised on numerous occasions lately in your Lordships' House, and I must say that the answers have given very little satisfaction. Does the Minister agree that we are now faced almost daily with headlines about this particularly vile and obscene crime which is taking place on an increasing and ominous scale? Those of us who have been following the situation with care think that the fall-back position of having more centres where the victims of rape can report is not preferable to instituting methods which may reduce the incidence of this terrible crime, and we are far from satisfied that such measures exist at the present time.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the police are taking all the steps they possibly can to reduce the incidence of rape. My noble friend Lady Macleod asked about special arrangements for the examination of women. As she said, there are those two centres, which will be followed by another six. I entirely share the noble Lord's concern and that is why every possible step is being taken to try to reduce the incidence of this dreadful crime.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, everyone in your Lordships' House will want to join in the expression of horror at the spate of cases of the kind raised in this Question, and we all want to try to help. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will consider a suggestion which I realise, however, contains difficulties. Is not one of the disincentives for a complainant to come forward to the police and to court proceedings the prospect of giving evidence and being cross-examined before the public and the press? Would the Minister consider the suggestion—I make it no more than that—that when the complainant in an appropriate case is giving evidence the court should be given discretion to clear the court of the press and the public?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that is a most interesting suggestion. So far as I know, it is not the case at present, and reliance is placed merely on reporting restrictions. But I shall certainly convey the noble Lord's point of view to those others concerned.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, may I say something which follows up what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said? When these creatures who perpetrate these horrid crimes on women and children go to and from police vans, why are they allowed the privilege of having their face covered with a blanket? Should they not be seen in their full horror?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think this applies to other cases and not just to rape, as my noble friend

507
suggests. I cannot tell my noble friend what the procedures are in individual cases but I shall certainly look at this question.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, when he is having discussions with chief constables will the noble Lord recognise that rape does not only take place in London but occurs in many parts of the country? That is important. Women's groups in various cities have all kinds of committees to try to prevent rape and they have listed many points. One of the matters about which they are very concerned is the poor street lighting because of the cutback in government and local authority expenditure. Repairs are not taking place and lighting is getting very much worse, which obviously leaves many dark places which people must walk through even on main streets. Those are the kinds of matters to which women are drawing the attention of the local police forces. Will the Minister make sure that all those points are considered?
Lord Glenarthur: I am sure, my Lords, that the local authorities concerned will take whatever steps they see fit to protect people. If their lighting is inadequate, they will make arrangements for it to be improved.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is a special committee at the Home Office to co-ordinate and look at all the different aspects of rape? Is he aware that there is tremendous feeling outside this House, particularly among women, that a meaningful deterrent must be found?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that all those who are involved in this matter at the Home Office take it very seriously and consider it in the light of all the different aspects of the departments which are concerned with it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I further ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can confirm that attached to every police station which has a special unit there could be a voluntary support scheme and young volunteers, having been trained, could go and give help to the victims after they have been through the police station and possibly the courts?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly rape crisis centres seem to be the sort of centres which could usefully promote my noble friend's point of view. I am sure that they will take note of what she says.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has considered the position of rape victims who are harassed by press photographers. Has he considered the attempt by one newspaper to show a photograph of a rape victim? Is this not a discouragement for women to report rape?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the case to which the noble Lord refers, and I understand that the Press Council is holding an inquiry into the publication of a photograph of an alleged rape victim in yesterday's Sun newspaper.

Liverpool Bay Fish: Mercury Levels
2.57 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: 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 are taking to ensure that independent monitoring of mercury levels in Liverpool Bay fish is not reduced following the abolition of the Greater Manchester and Merseyside Councils.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food monitors mercury levels in fish in Liverpool Bay and will continue to do so.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware—no doubt he is, because of a reply that he gave to my noble friend Lady Stedman last week—that independent monitoring is having to cease because of the lack of funding from the metropolitan counties? In view of the fact that the mercury levels in fish in Liverpool Bay are only just within the EEC EQS of 0·3 mg/kg, does the Minister not think that this is a time for increasing monitoring rather than reducing it? Can he further give your Lordships' House an idea of how frequently his Ministry carry out monitoring, and how long it takes for the results to be published?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that I agree with the noble Lord that the monitoring will have to cease. Exactly the same situation presented itself in Tyne and Wear, and there the district councils have made sure that the sea fisheries committee will continue to operate in a satisfactory way. I very much hope that a way can be found to go forward so far as concerns the Lancashire and western sea fisheries joint committees. Secondly, may I just say that the levels of mercury in fish in Liverpool Bay are below the environmental quality standard laid down by the Community, and have been for many years. The monitoring that we do takes place on about 20 days of every year, and of course Britain's membership of various international conventions requires us to continue this work.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Select Committee G on the EEC has been taking evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this very point, and that it has been very impressed by the comprehensiveness and the thoroughness with which the Ministry's inspectors carry out these inspections on all the sites round our coast where sewage dumping takes place, including, of course, Liverpool Bay?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. The only point I ought to add, and which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be pleased to hear me add, is that we shall keep the situation under review, particularly in the context of this Question, and make such changes as may be necessary.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister able to say how much his Ministry has relied upon the results of the monitoring undertaken by this committee? If the Ministry has found it necessary to use the results, will it not consider increasing the frequency of its own monitoring to try to fill the gap that will inevitably be left? Is the Minister aware that we are not just talking about Liverpool Bay; this particular committee covers the whole of the west coast of Wales.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we do not rely upon the monitoring work undertaken by this committee.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend has been helpful in referring to the Welsh interest in this matter. Will the Minister confirm that he is in touch with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and with the county councils of Clwyd and Gwynedd on this subject?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I understand it, the problem is not a Clwyd and Gwynedd problem: the problem is whether the successor district councils in the Merseyside and Greater Manchester areas are prepared to come forward and take up membership of this important committee.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lady Nicol, is the Minister saying that there is no co-operation between his Ministry and the local people as regards this monitoring? If there is no such co-operation, why is that so?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I did not quite say that. I was in effect saying that there really is no monitoring of fish quality by this sea fishery committee, and it is for that reason that we do not rely on the monitoring. It does not exist.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I accept that the Minister, in a Written Answer to me last week, said that some of the district authorities were not willing to continue financing this scheme. However, it is not just the district authorities from Merseyside and Greater Manchester which are concerned. Has there been any consultation with the county councils of Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, and the three Welsh counties which also take part in this scheme, which is funded up to a twelfth of a penny rate by each of the authorities concerned?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is essentially a matter for the councils in the district of the sea fishery committee to decide on whether or not to support the committee. My right honourable friend has a statutory role in considering applications to set up or to modify sea fishery committees. My right honourable friend cannot force district or county councils to give their support.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to refer to two minor points. The noble Lord mentioned 20 days a year. Are those 20 days in relation to the whole of the coastline of the United Kingdom, or do they relate to the specific area to which the Question refers? Did I hear the Minister say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord
510
John-Mackie, that no monitoring of mercury levels was carried out by this organisation?—because if that is what he said, I think he is mistaken.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point, let me say that I am talking about Liverpool Bay when I refer to the 20 days. My understanding is that there is no monitoring of fish quality. There is monitoring of samples taken from the bed of the sea, and there is monitoring of water quality. Both of those activities are important activities, but they are not the same as the monitoring of fish quality.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Sex Discrimination Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Surrogacy Arrangements (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Marriage (Wales) Bill
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Gibson-Watt.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sex Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Young, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Private households and small undertakings]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lady said: I said on Second Reading that I disliked Clause 1 of the Bill and now, in moving this amendment, I shall explain to the Committee in detail why I dislike it. I do not know who has managed to persuade the European Court of Justice that the provisions of the 1975 Act, which Clause 1(1) repeals, were contrary to the EEC equal treatment directive. I have my suspicions, but I do not know. However, I can say that this is a really prime example of what Private Eye calls, "Loony feminist nonsense".
What everyone seems to have forgotten is that Section 2 of the 1975 Act provides that Parts II and III of that Act:
"are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite"
—whatever that nebulous phrase may mean. It sounds like nonsense to me.
So we have the exemption for small businesses repealed. That was the exemption which said that an undertaking employing five or less people was exempt from the provisions of the 1975 Act. I might mention here that the 1974 White Paper, Equality for Women, recommended exemption for firms employing less than 10 people. However, when the Bill was drafted that figure was reduced to five, and I wonder why. My guess is that the exemption was so paltry that it would apply to very few firms, so that later it could be argued that it was really so pointless that it might as well be abolished, as this clause seeks to do.
However, what is the point of the restriction? It cuts both ways. It means that a man cannot have a small business employing men only, unless the job would involve a female employee in close physical contact with a man or there is not a ladies' loo. However, it also means that a woman cannot run a business employing women only, unless similar conditions apply. So what good is it doing? It is just loony feminist nonsense. It could well deter a woman from starting a small business with a few friends. Let us remember that it is from small acorns that great oak trees grow—the firm of Laura Ashley may be an appropriate example.
I now come to the real horror: the repeal of the exemption for private households. That really is quite appalling. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
"The effect of the change would be to bring within the scope of the Act employees having relatively little physical or social contact with the householder, perhaps a gardener or a cook in a large household".—[Official Report, 27/2/86; col. 1177]
I should like to remind your Lordships of the provision of Section 7(2)(a) of the 1975 Act which says that physical strength or stamina is not a reason for discrimination. Let us take the case of the gardener not actually living in the house, not doing a job which involves close physical contact with the householder, but whose duties involve not only light hoeing and raking but also heavy digging, clearing snow, putting down sand and salt in winter, cutting up and carrying firewood and fuel, and sometimes carrying heavy luggage and other heavy items. In those circumstances the householder wishes to employ a man because generally men are better able to do that kind of work without injuring themselves than women. I accept that there are exceptions to every rule, but I ask your
512
Lordships to remember that this employer wants a gardener. Therefore, qualifications for gardening are important.
But if he has two applicants, one male and one female, and the female one has slightly better qualifications but a rather delicate physique and he gives the job to the man, he can be taken to court under this clause. Again, if the man has the best qualifications but is a weedy little chap and the woman has slightly less good qualifications but resembles a female Hercules, the man can sue if the job is given to the woman.
The same applies to butlers, handymen, estates staff. I suppose that it might be possible at the interview to ask an applicant to perform heavy work, but I do not think it would be satisfactory, and anyway it is a quite ridiculous proposition. I may not want a chef in my kitchen for reasons which I am not prepared to tell the Committee because I do not want a thousand angry letters from chefs, but unless the cook is to live out I cannot refuse to employ a man even if I do not want one.
Then, as most of your Lordships who employ household or estate staff know very well, there is the question of personal preference. If you have someone you dislike, or someone who does not fit in with other employees, working in your house or garden, it can be unpleasant or even intolerable. We cannot like people because the law says we must, but this clause will make it impossible legally to find an excuse for not employing someone you dislike, or who you think will not fit in, but who may apparently have better qualifications than someone you like and who will fit in.
I now turn to subsection (2), the exemptions. What is the definition of "physical or social contact" which someone might reasonably object to a person of, presumably, the opposite sex having with him, or her, as their employer? Is there one? Who is to decide? How is a court going to decide? What may seem unreasonable to one person may seem perfectly reasonable to another.
For instance, I consider that being jammed in a seat in an aircraft between two very fat men whose elbows jab me all through the flight is close physical contact, and most unpleasant too. But "the world's favourite airline" apparently does not, and on my leaving they hope that I have enjoyed my flight. It is a matter of individual personal opinion and not something that, so far as I can see, any court could reasonably decide about.
At the end of all this, it is in my opinion a totally unwarrantable and intolerable interference with the freedom of a Briton to take into his household whom he pleases and to exclude whom he wishes. Although the exigencies of modern life have made some modifications of this famous dictum necessary, over 350 years ago the celebrated lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, who I think was Lord Chief Justice, said in his Institutes:
"A man's home is his castle. Et domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium."
And again, on another occasion:
"The house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress".

513
I do not know our European partners' views of the sanctity of a person's home, but that is ours. It is a freedom we have long cherished and one which we should not surrender tamely without a fight. I ask the Government to go back to the European Court and tell them that this is quite unacceptable to us in this country, and to ask them to think again. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg to support this amendment, to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has spoken with great eloquence. It is to leave out subsection (1) which repeals Section 6(3) of the Act of 1975. This notwithstanding that it is accepted that, in accordance with our treaty obligations as a result of the decision in the Commission and the United Kingdom on 8th November 1983, some new provision instead of Section 6(3) has to be made. This because the provision proposed in Clause 1(2) is not appropriate. It is not requisite, and it is not acceptable.
The repeal of Section 6(3) by Clause 1(1), the subject of this amendment, before some suitable amendment has been drafted, would be premature. The amendment moved by the noble Lady, which I understand to be a probing amendment, strikes at Clause 1(1) as a holding position to inhibit the repeal of Section 6(3) pending further consideration as to how to amend our own law to comply with Council Directive 76/207 as interpreted by the court in some way other than that proposed by Clause 1(2). If Amendment No. 1 induces my noble friend the Minister to take this back for consideration, then as I understand it Amendment No. 4, which stands in the name of the noble Lady, would be premature and is designed only as a longstop.
The objection to Section 6(3) taken by the court—I have the report of the case here, and I have studied it with such care as I can muster—was that it was far too widely drafted. The concept of employment for the purposes of a private household, the court held, was far too general. There was no limitation as to numbers; no guidance as to what "household" was, nor what was private. The court held in context with midwives—and this was a case about midwives, not as a rule part of any well-regulated family household—that by reason only of the generality of Section 6(3) it went far beyond any objective which could lawfully be pursued within the derogation of Article 2(2) of that directive. It is a highly technical, limited judgment. That derogation allowed discrimination when the sex of the worker constituted "the determining factor". This was a consideration fully accepted by the court.
In reaching this conclusion—in context, I stress, with midwives—the court expressly held at paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment that certain kinds of employer in private households were perfectly free from any concept of discrimination as between male or female because there must always be respect for private life, which was "the decisive factor".
All that is required if one studies the reasoning of the court is that some new provision should be made to bring our law into line with the directive as interpreted by the court, and to do this in a way which would be intelligible both to us and to the court. One could start, for example, by seeking to define "private household"
514
with some limitation as to numbers, perhaps with reference to employees, whom the noble Lady spoke about, such as gardeners, cooks, butlers, handymen, whether resident or not.
In this context it could be provided in our statute that discrimination would be allowed when it appeared that the sex of the worker constituted the determining factor within the derogation of Article 2(2). This as an adjunct to the respect for private life, the predominant and decisive factor.
Our treaty obligations require no more and no less than that Section 6(3) should be replaced by some such provision. But instead of this approach, instead of following the reasoning of the court, Clause 1(2) introduced two concepts, neither of which was mentioned by the court nor in argument to the court nor in the opinion of the advocate general. The first concept is wholly unrealistic and the second is totally irrelevant. To seek to introduce the standard by which reasonable objection may be taken to a degree of physical or social contact with a person is, as the noble Lady has said with greater eloquence than I could muster, to seek to define the indefinable. To import knowledge of private affairs as constituting a determining factor as regards the choice of sex of an employee in a private household is a concept of irrelevancy which all but belies credence. Amendment No. 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle takes this point. The verbiage of the tailpiece in no way mitigates these criticisms.
In conclusion, it is much to be doubted whether Clause 2(2) would prevent further cases in the court in this context. The court might take the view that insufficient attention had been paid to the principles and the reasoning of its judgment. Also, to all practical intents and purposes this collection of words rarely came to this, that they did not meet the objection to generality as applicable to Section 6(3) which was the fundamental basis and the only basis of their decision.
It is common ground between the Government and the court that there should be freedom to choose the sex of employees closely involved in family life. The only question is how this shall be done within the derogation of Article 2(2) of the Directive as interpreted by the court. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give consideration to the amendment of Section 6(3) to square with the principles of the reasoning of the court, along the lines implied by the reasoning of the court to reduce its generality to which objection was taken. The hope must be that the Government will introduce a redraft of the whole of Clause 1, on Report perhaps, in which both concepts of the definition in Clause 1(2) as it stands could be omitted, and practical and realistic means of resolution which square with the approach of the court and deal with the problems of generality could be found.
According to the opinion of the advocate general—that is not part of the reasoning of the court, but it is worthy of the Committee's consideration—the problem only arose by reason of an erroneous interpretation of the exception under Article 2(2) of the Directive by Section 6(3) of the Act. Surely it would be possible to meet that requirement in a simple, convenient way which squares with the reasoning of the court.
Lord McCarthy: The Committee will know that we like to agree with the Government when we can and we find that we can. At least we find that we cannot agree with the amendment. I should like to ask some questions to clarify the significance of the amendment and how the amendment stands with other parts of the Bill. As I understand it, the amendment wishes to leave out subsection (1), but not to leave out subsection (2). Yet subsection (2) is a way of carrying out some of the things that the Government want to do as a result of subsection (1). It is not clear to me why the amendment did not want to get rid of both subsections (1) and (2). I should like to have that clarified.
Moreover the noble Lady has also put down Amendment No. 4. It is not clear to me whether Amendment No. 4 is being moved now, because Amendment No. 4 has its own peculiarities. It seems to be based upon a quite different set of assumptions. It is based on the assumption that Clause 1 stands because then Amendment No. 4 says that it shall only stand for three years. Whether we are discussing Amendment No. 4 now or whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says, that will stand in reserve and will be moved subsequently if this amendment falls, I do not know. If this amendment were not to go down what happens to subsection (2) is not clear to me.
In broad terms we support Clause 1 as it stands. The only doubt I have about Clause 1 as it stands is the way in which the Government have sought to deal with the exclusion of private houses. They have not decided to do this simply by applying the Sex Discrimination Bill to private households; they have sought to make some rather tortuous distinctions. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, when he said that at least one of those distinctions, a knowledge of private affairs, is entirely irrelevant. We have a way of dealing with that because there is an amendment on the Marshalled List to deal with that. The only justification for seeking at this late stage to take this clause out of the Bill altogether, which is really what the amendment seeks to do (I should have thought it would have been better to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill), is that one does not wish to honour the European decision.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with care, but I do not regard him as having provided us with a simple alternative. His alternative seemed much more complicated. It seemed much less likely to satisfy the European legislation and more likely to lead us to a situation where a further applicant will make a further case before the European Court and yet again we shall be told that we are in breach of our agreements.
The reason we have amendments of this kind is perhaps because the Government, as they have in previous legislation, have let it be known that they are deeply concerned and should not like to have to honour obligations of this kind. In this respect, we have to take note of remarks made by the Secretary of State on Second Reading when he said that the Government could not say in any way that they welcomed or found acceptable this part of the Bill. He said once again how important it seemed to the Government that they should make special provisions
516
for small firms. We have never been able to follow this argument. We have always taken the view that the exclusion of small firms from the sex discrimination legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said on Second Reading, is largely there because of a case load problem. There is no argument about why small firms should be permitted to discriminate on a sex basis and indeed the Secretary of State at Second Reading said that he did not wish to suggest that the practice of sex discrimination by firms was reasonable whatever their size. No evidence is adduced to suggest that in fact the law can only apply to large firms or that if small firms were asked not to discriminate they would all become bankrupt and disappear from the land. The Government are expressing, through, I believe, amendments put forward in other parts of the Committee and through those who feel like it, their horror of the regulation of small firms, and their horror of regulation of this kind altogether. Nevertheless, because they believe that they must honour their obligations, they are putting forward in this clause of the Bill the very least that they can do and get away with; and we support them in that.
3.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down, possibly it would be of assistance to the Committee if I were to answer the two questions that he asked of me. Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and myself will not be moved unless the noble Lord, Lord Monson, arrives to move it.
Several noble Lords: He is here!
Lord Monson: It is not for me to intervene, but I think that there is quite enough to talk about in this amendment as it stands so I think it would be best if we were to leave Amendment No. 4 now and to speak about that in due course.
Baroness Seear: I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said in relation to small firms. I can see no reason whatsoever why there should be this exemption for small firms. It is totally arbitrary to take the figure of five persons. I repeat what I said at Second Reading that I am pretty certain that that was only introduced into the original Act because of the size of the case load if we were to try to enforce it throughout. I think that in the minds of many at the time the 1975 Act was passed, it was taken for granted that sooner or later that exemption would go. I must say that I find the wording with regard to private households extremely unsatisfactory and I would support the people who ask the Government to look again at this curious subsection (2)(i), the degree of physical or social contact with a person living in the house, etc.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said, I should have thought that that was almost unenforceable legally because it is so vague in its definition. If this is to stand as the law it must be clarified so that we have something which we really do comprehend and that can be enforceable.
Lord Renton: I, too, desire to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. I wish to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench who will be replying to this debate a specific question which is both relevant to our law and to the position of the European Court; namely, what evidence is there in this country so far that the provision which it is sought to repeal under subsection (1) has caused any problem of discrimination in this country? I think that is the fundamental question which we all have to consider. But, having said that, which to my mind is in relation to our own legislation a paramount point, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said in a very closely reasoned argument about the exact effect of the decision of the European Court.
He has shown that subsection (1) does not flow from the court's directive except on a very tendentious interpretation of it and that therefore the repeal of subsection (3) of Section 6 of the 1975 Act is not necessitated by it. I would add this in a general way to the argument which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has put. When it falls upon the United Kingdom Parliament to change its law, as we have undertaken to do on certain occasions in the light of the decisions in the European Court, I suggest that it is not incumbent upon us slavishly to implement those decisions in detail however nonsensical the result may be. Certainly, the result in this case of placing the interpretation which the Government seem to have placed upon the decision of this court is to make a most extraordinary situation. We should try to avoid the law being made into an ass by our own deliberate legislative will. But if we are not careful that is exactly what we do if we allow this subsection to remain in the Bill.
Lord Monson: I am happy to support my noble friend Lady Saltoun in her excellent amendment so excellently moved. I wish that I could emulate her command of the Latin tongue. I certainly think that the exemption for small employers ought to be retained not only for the normal libertarian reasons but because I would have thought that one of the prerequisites for the successful functioning of a small firm is that everybody ought to be able to get along well with each other at close quarters; and the smaller the firm, the more that is a consideration.
Like my noble friend I feel that it is the provisions affecting private households that really stick in the gullet—not for any personal reasons, I hasten to say. Subsection (2) is said to be a safeguard for the private employers but people who employ gardeners, for example, do not appear to be exempted from the provisions of this Act by the provisions of subsection (2). The Committee may remember the much publicised case of an elderly lady a year or two ago who asked her gardener, a rather cantankerous man, it sounded, to carry out a certain task, whereupon he replied with a torrent of abuse, obscenity and insults, which was extremely traumatic for somebody of her generation. So she dismissed him and was promptly hauled up before an Industrial Court, with maximum publicity in the tabloids.
The court found against her saying, as I remember, that she ought to have disciplined him first before
518
sacking him. Whether they meant that she should give him six of the best or make him write out 100 times, "I must not use four-letter words", I am not sure, but that is what they said. Obviously, from any normal point of view, that is a preposterous state of affairs. Is it to be wondered that such a lady might prefer in future to employ a gardener of her own sex? But that would not be permitted under the clause as it stands.
What is more, subsection (2) makes no provision in a private household for people who actually prefer to employ someone of the sex other than their own. For example, one can think of a man who is an elderly invalid who can afford a full-time nurse and who might well prefer an attractive female nurse. I know that I would in similar circumstances. But he would not be allowed to do so under the clause as it stands. If a slightly better qualified male nurse presented himself, he would have to be employed or the employer might risk prosecution. There are a number of reasons why a woman might not wish to employ another woman in her private household. Supposing in her sensitive years of puberty a pass had been made at her by one of the women much favoured in terms of grants by Mr. Ken Livingstone's GLC, for example. One can think of all sorts of examples.
Almost the worst thing about the clause as it stands is that it will not help to reduce unemployment. Employers will be reluctant to employ people openly and above board and pay them a salary. They will employ them illicitly, as it were, and pay them cash. This will not show up on the unemployment register. I fully back this amendment. If it is not agreed to by the Committee, then perhaps we may look at Amendment No. 4 which is in my name.
Baroness Lockwood: I am rather surprised at some of the arguments which are being deployed in favour of this particular amendment. It is true that Clause 1 really covers two aspects of the Sex Discrimination Bill. The first area is of course small employers, and the second area is private households. Perhaps it is a pity that the two have been put together, because there are different arguments in favour of the two sections.
In relation to the first part, small firms, I agree completely with what my noble friend Lord McCarthy and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about small employers. I believe the clause was originally included because we were moving into new territory and wanted to gain experience on how a Sex Discrimination Act would apply. As we have now had some 10 years' experience of the sensible working of the Act, we can move into the area where employees, whether employed by large or small concerns, could be included. I would say that this is on the basis not only of the ruling of the European Court but also of the monitoring by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which itself recommended to the Secretary of State in 1981 that small companies should now come within the ambit of the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked what evidence there was to bring about this change. Unfortunately there is no recorded evidence because the cases have not been applicable; but if one were to comb through the records of the Equal Opportunities Commission very carefully, there would be quite considerable

519
evidence relating to inquiries and initial complaints that had come forward about the exclusion of small firms in this regard. Therefore I support most strongly the suggestion that small firms should be included within the ambit of the legislation.
The second area is more delicate and relates to private households. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that Section 6(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act is very widely drawn and has caused some concern both to the courts and to the Equal Opportunities Commission. Nevertheless, if we take the clause as now drafted, with the amendment that is coming after we have dealt with this particular clause, then I think it would be within the scope of the industrial tribunals to cope very adequately with this clause.
When the Sex Discrimination Act was first introduced there was considerable concern about Section 7, which dealt with exceptions on the grounds of genuine occupational qualifications, and the courts have dealt very adequately with such cases and have interpreted genuine occupational qualifications very sensitively and sensibly. I think they could do so in this respect also. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, in the example he put before us, was really relating to another Act rather than to the Sex Discrimination Act. He was referring, I think, to the Employment Protection Act when he said that the women should have given her cantankerous gardener a warning before dismissing him. That is covered not by the Sex Discrimination Act but by another Act.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, with regard to her reference to qualifications, that again I think she had an inadequate understanding of the term "qualifications" in this respect, because we are talking about qualifications for the job; and for the job of a gardener they would include all the qualifications necessary for that particular job—not just academic qualifications but whether or not the gardener could push the little garden cart when it was full of soil, and that kind of thing. So it really depends on how we draw the job description. I think it is perhaps a red herring to bring in the whole question of qualifications when we are looking at qualifications for a particular job which might be better done by a man or a women, depending on their individual aptitude and qualifications.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: Are we not in very great danger of misinterpreting altogether the word "discrimination"? If we are to have total lack of discrimination, it disregards whether an applicant is male or female. If an employer is told that he may not employ a man or a woman owing to some purely hypothetical situation, surely that in itself is discrimination against that sex, whichever sex it happens to be. Total lack of discrimination is, as I say, a total lack of regard as to the sex of the applicants but is purely a consideration of whether they are suitable for the work they intend to do.
As for the European Court, I do not think the language I would be likely to use about it would be very suitable for your Lordships' Chamber. I can only
520
say that we are surely governing our own country still, and is it not better that we should use our own common sense for that purpose?
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid I have to say at the outset that the effect of these amendments is to under-mine entirely the purpose of Clause 1 and to bring us into head-on conflict with the European Court of Justice. Almost every speaker has expressed fears in relation to Clause 1 and in particular in relation to bringing private households into the ambit of sex discrimination legislation. I am sure that Members of the Committee on all sides concur with the sentiments behind these fears. We all agree that the sanctity of the home and the principle of respect for private life are indeed fundamental in a civilised society. I too regret that the European Commission bothered to take the United Kingdom to court over the small and very reasonable gaps in our equal opportunity legislation, but the European Court of Justice found us to have failed to implement European law.
Clause 1 redresses this failure in respect of small firms and private households. It is a necessary provision if we are not to be in breach of our obligations under the Treaty of Rome, and the United Kingdom Government take these obligations, and indeed law and order in general, very seriously. It is in no one's interests if European Community law is undermined. We certainly expect other European Community countries to abide by the treaty; so there can be no question but that the broad exclusion of small firms and private households from sex discrimination legislation must be removed. But let me reassure the Committee. This change to the private household exclusion is not an attack on the Englishman's castle that some fear. I detect that some of us are more than a little impatient with our European colleagues, but we may be assured that they too recognise the fundamental importance of private life.
Clause 1 is so framed that no one will have to have a man employed in their home working or living alongside them where there might be a reasonable objection to a man in those particular circumstances. The clause will probably mean that in a large household where staff have little or no contact with the family, a woman could no longer be rejected for the post of, say, head gardener simply because of her sex. I do not think anyone could reasonably object to that result. It will not mean that a man will have to be employed as a nanny or an old lady's companion, although it will not prevent him from being so employed if no one objects.
As is well known, the Government have had difficulty in accepting the European view with regard to very small firms, and we are seeking to change the directive to permit an exception from the legislation. We do not intend to flout European law. In 1973, the United Kingdom became part of the European Community and agreed to abide by its decisions. That action was endorsed by a convincing majority of those people in this country who voted in the referendum. Our membership necessarily means swallowing some less palatable decisions while working to ensure that our influence prevents bad and burdensome European law being made in the future. What influence can we

521
hope to have on European Community directives at the formative stage if we are seen not to abide by them afterwards?
I must emphasise that we do not think that small firms should discriminate on grounds of sex. Not only is it unfair; it is uneconomic, depriving those firms of the skills of half the population. But very small firms do not have the administrative and legal resources that a larger firm possesses in order to come to grips with the detailed provisions of the legislation. We intend to help those firms get over that difficulty, in so far as possible, by producing simplified guidance on all employment aspects of the sex discrimination legislation.
May I just touch upon one or two of the points that have been made during the course of our discussion this afternoon? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked about a possible definition of a private household by reference to numbers. That is something that the European Court's judgment specifically prevents us from doing. I refer my noble friend to what the court said about small firms. Meeting the court's judgment in the way that my noble friend suggested is the very thing that we have attempted to do, and that is what we believe the clause does.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked whether there was any real evidence of actual problems with this provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to that point during her remarks. She, of course, speaks from a position of very considerable experience and authority in these matters. I must agree that, as far as we can tell, there is very little discrimination, in practice, by small firms or in private homes. That is, I suggest, all the more reason not to flout European law, as it does not appear to be likely to cause very much difficulty.
I can end, perhaps, by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that if in his declining years he needs the services of a nurse, he will be perfectly at liberty to choose a female one if he thinks fit.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I see whether I have his argument right? Although he wants to apply the Act, he seems to be saying that the problem with applying the Sex Discrimination Act to the employment of fewer than five people is that, on the one hand, it will cause difficulty, but, on the other, it will not. If it be the case that all kinds of administrative resources are required to avoid discrimination—I should have thought that all we wanted was an absence of prejudice—he has an argument. But he cannot at the same time say that in fact there is no prejudice and no difficulty. What is it to be?
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord will be aware, ever since we came into office in 1979 we have been seeking to lift the burden of regulation from small businesses. If he will allow me to say so, I think that we can claim a very considerable measure of success in that regard: witness the fact that the small business sector of our economy is flourishing as almost never before. Every additional piece of legislation which applies to those small enterprises—in this case we are referring to very small enterprises indeed—is an added burden of which we should like to relieve them. That is why we were unwilling to impose these constraints
522
upon them when the original legislation was passed. Of course, that was some time ago now.
My view is that it is very regrettable that the European Court should see fit to decide that the exemptions should be lifted. I cannot pretend, as I have said, that there is a great string of cases to which we can point as causing difficulty. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who spoke earlier will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: Before my noble friend sits down, if this measure becomes an Act will it cease to be legal for a household with perhaps just one or two staff to advertise for a girl or a man to do whatever job it might be? I believe that one can do that at the moment with a small staff. That, presumably, will become illegal?
Lord Trefgarne: It depends entirely upon what the person concerned is likely to be doing. If he or she comes within the ambit of the provisions defined in the clause that we are discussing, the sort of advertisement to which my noble friend has referred will continue to be perfectly proper.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell the Committee what will happen if your Lordships' House or, more realistically, another place finally loses patience and refuses to knuckle under to one or more of these European directives, as is bound to happen sooner or later under a Labour Government, if not necessarily under a Conservative one? After all, as I understand it, Governments propose but Parliament disposes. In what practical way could the will of Parliament be overriden in such circumstances?
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord will recall that when the European Community legislation went through Parliament it was explained that in certain areas the British Parliament was deferring to the procedures of the European Community. This is such a case.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord mean that this measure will become law automatically even if Parliament refuse to give the Bill a Second or Third Reading?
Lord Trefgarne: No, that is not the case. As he noble Lord will be aware, that is not the way that we propose to proceed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before I say any more, I shall answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on the peculiar drafting of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, put down Amendment No. 4, which was a safety-net amendment. Therefore, although I wished to oppose Clause 1, had I done so it would have come after the safety-net amendment. I therefore had to do it in a devious manner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to the 1975 Act as a sensible Act. Only at lunchtime today the chairman of a very distinguished organisation said words to the effect that the 1975 Act

523
was almost impossible to understand and a nightmare to implement.
I am not happy with the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I am particularly unhappy about it as regards private households, because we have no proper answer to the question of what would constitute reasonable or unreasonable physical contact. However, I shall not press the amendment today. I shall withdraw it and reserve the right to bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble Lady withdraws the amendment, may I say that there is no prospect of the Government changing their view on this matter and she may prefer that the Committee should reach a view on it today.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Very well. In that case I shall press the amendment, although I told the Government that I would not.
3.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 175.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Bauer, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Porritt, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rugby, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Kinnaird, L.

Somers, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thurlow, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cathcart, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cawley, L.

Allerton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Alport, L.

Collison, L.

Amherst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cox, B.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V.

Aylestone, L.

Dé La Warr, E.

Beloff, L.

Denham, L.

Belstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bottomley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Brockway, L.

Eccles, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Effingham, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ennals, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Caradon, L.

Faithfull, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkland, V.

524

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gallacher, L.

Parry, L.

Galpern, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenamara, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reigate, L.

Grey, E.

Rhodes, L.

Gridley, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grimond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rochdale, V.

Rochester, Bp.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rodney, L.

Hayter, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Henley, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Heycock, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Holderness, L.

Seear, B.

Hooper, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hunt, L.

Sharples, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strauss, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swansea, L.

Leatherland, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lockwood, B.

Teviot, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McCarthy, L.

Trumpington, B.

McFadzean, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mar, C.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Marley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mersey, V.

Westbury, L.

Milverton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Molson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Winstanley, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("home") to end of line 1 on page 2.
The noble Baroness said: The Equal Opportunities Commission, like the Government, emphasises the importance of reconciling the principle of respect for private life, and the first part of Clause 1 is designed to achieve that end. It has of course always been a

525
fundamental part of the Sex Discrimination Act that the employer should be free to appoint the best person for the job, taking the job as a whole.
I raised this matter on Second Reading when my noble friend the Secretary of State, in answering, referred to it as a curious exemption and defended it by quoting as an example that someone might object to a man doing the laundry. I wonder whether words such as "personal belongings" might be more appropriate in that case. I have looked up the word "affairs" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and there are a number of definitions. Perhaps I may read out the first three:
"1. What one has to do, or has to do with; business; more vaguely, a concern. 2. Ordinary pursuits of life; commercial or professional business; public business".
The third definition is:
"Used vaguely of any proceeding which it is not desired to be precise about".
That is really what is concerning us—its lack of precision which may cause confusion and therefore unnecessary litigation.
If it is not possible to be more precise, we feel that it would be better withdrawn. We feel that trustworthiness over private affairs a very important matter in a small household. It is not a matter of sex but of character, and therefore does not need to be part of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We support this amendment. As I tried to suggest in the discussion on an earlier amendment, we find this part of the Bill rather ambiguous and rather complex. We should have preferred a much more straightforward inclusion within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act of private households and undertakings. Nevertheless, the Government have provided a qualified way of doing that, and that is done in the part of the clause which the noble Baroness considers should remain. I find it very difficult, as she does, to see what is the discrimination which needs to be retained and which needs to be practised on the basis of this part of the clause. The
"degree of physical or social contact"
is left in; I find it difficult to see why one needs to have the subparagraph:
"the knowledge of such a person's private affairs".
What is it that men can know about us that women cannot; what is it that women can find out about our private affairs that men will not? Where is the risk on grounds of sex of knowledge of our private affairs? I should like the Minister to tell me.
Lord Monson: It goes without saying that I oppose this amendment on principle. I think it insolent in the extreme for the law to poke its nose into people's private affairs, and therefore anything that strengthens the law in this regard rather than weakens it I oppose automatically.
This seems to be the ideal moment to try to clarify something which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said on subsection (2) before the Division. This is important, and after we leave Amendment No. 2 we will no longer be able to speak about subsection (2). The noble Lord spoke about the hypothetical case of
526
the elderly man who wishes to employ a pretty female nurse rather than an ugly male one. With due respect, I think he is wrong. As I interpret subsection (2) it allows people to discriminate against those of another sex but it does not allow them to discriminate against their own sex. This is a fault even by the Government's own standards in the drafting of subsection (2).
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support this amendment. As has already been said, it is difficult to know why,
"knowledge of such a person's private affairs",
should in anyway be connected with the sex of a person. After all, the person who often knows most about our private affairs is our solicitor or our accountant. They are not likely to be part of the private household. I suggest that this clause is entirely redundant. Indeed I would go further than that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, has said, it is difficult to define and interpret what is meant by this subsection. It would cause the courts a great deal of difficulty in interpretation. The clause as it stands would be much clearer and much more more helpful both to individuals and to the courts.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I listened very carefully to my noble friend and indeed to everybody else who has spoken. I know that my noble friend supports the principle of the clause, and is anxious, like me, to get it right. We are talking here about a subject of major importance: employment actually within the home. It can therefore affect everyone in this country at some stage in their life. The wording of the clause was chosen to reconcile what the European Court of Justice recognised as two fundamental principles: one, the principle of equality between the sexes; and two, the principle of respect for private life.
The court accepted that there are some circumstances—but not all—where a householder should be free to choose an employee of a particular sex. The Government have attempted in Clause 1 to define the area where discrimination should be permitted. This is by and large the area of jobs which involve working or living in a private home, and which entail physical or social contact with a member of the household so that there could be reasonable objection to a man—or a woman—having the job. Examples of this sort of job are a companion to an elderly person or a children's nanny.
Nobody has objected to the inclusion of "social contact" although one might argue that, if there is no question of physical decency, one sex can make as good a companion as the other. But sensible and reasonable people will accept that a woman may legitimately prefer a female companion, and a man a male companion because they believe they will have more common interests. That is a matter of respecting people's sensibilities, and so is the second part of Clause 1.
This caters for the situation where a householder wishes to employ someone for a job which includes a personal service for a member of the household. To give a practical example—an elderly woman might need someone to do her washing and ironing or make her bed and she may find it distasteful to think of a

527
man doing those things for her; an old-fashioned view perhaps but I imagine a not uncommon one. She might be bedridden, or the job might be done on a day when she was out, so the physical contact between herself and the employee would be nil. The social contact might be minimal—merely admitting the employee to the house—or non-existent. But to suggest that the principle of equality between the sexes demands that she consider employing a man on such intimate work is clearly unacceptable. To do so would be a gross invasion of her privacy and must undermine both her personal dignity and the principle of respect for private life.
The question is: can this provision be abused to defend real discrimination? Can it license an employer, for example, to employ only men on the spurious grounds that women are less discreet and therefore not to be trusted with knowledge of a person's finance or access to private papers? I assure the noble Baroness and every Member of the Committee that this is not the intention or the effect. To suggest that one sex is inherently more trustworthy than the other is obvious prejudice. The clause provides that there must be reasonable objection to a particular sex, and I am convinced that tribunals would not hold it reasonable to object to a man—or, alternatively, a woman—being able to look at a householder's bank statement, for example. The words complained of have been included to cover contact with the household's intimate belongings, and I believe that this is a fundamental aspect of respect for private life. Now that I have explained the very limited effect of the words that it is proposed to delete, I hope that my noble friend will agree that the amendment need not be pressed.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for his reply and for the way in which he has expanded upon the explanation that was given on Second Reading. Some of his remarks have given me considerably more faith in the clause. On the other hand, I still think that it would be a good thing if I were to read in Hansard what my noble friend has said and decide later whether or not to bring this matter forward again. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) In section 11 of the 1975 Act for the words "a firm consisting of six or more partners" there shall be substituted the words "any firm which is a partnership".").
The noble Baroness said: As was said earlier this afternoon, the purpose of the present Bill is to comply in the first instance with the decision of the European Court of Justice of November 1983, when it found our legislation deficient with reference, among other things, to smaller employers. The Bill includes undertakings of five employees or fewer, which deals with small firms, but the directive refers to equal access to jobs at all levels of the occupational hierarchy.
In the sort of partnerships we all know about, of a professional type, the partners are the top tier—similar
528
to senior managers in a company. We are anxious that unless the Bill includes partnerships, it may fail to comply with the directive. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Secretary of State promised to reconsider this matter. I hope that, because of his reconsideration, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will be able to accept my amendment this afternoon, I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We are prepared to accept this amendment. In fact, we believe that it is a perfectly logical provision to insert into the Bill. We find it difficult to understand why the Government themselves did not put such a clause into the Bill. After all, the Act makes a distinction between employment in establishments and employment in other bodies. It then goes on to provide that the provisions of the Act shall apply in a whole range of other bodies, including trade unions, qualifying bodies, employment agencies, the MSC, the police, and so on—and, of course, partnerships.
In all the instances of all the other bodies—trade unions and so on—no questions of size are involved. The only place where the issue of size can logically arise is in employment establishments and in partnerships. The Sex Discrimination Act was logical, I suppose, in the sense that, having decided to exclude employment establishments of fewer than five persons, it included also partnerships numbering fewer than five persons.
It surely follows that if one decides to take employment establishments of fewer than five persons and put them, as it were, into the Act, then one should also take partnerships and put them into the Act as well. So far as I can, I always try to understand in advance (but I am not very often successful) what kind of arguments the Government might advance for doing anything that they do. The only justification I can think of is that the judgment in the European Court did not deal directly with this issue. It dealt with an employment establishment and not with a partnership.
The answer to that is the answer the Minister made in relation to the previous amendment; that if we sought to take too literal and narrow a view of the consequences of the judgment of the European Court, then subsequent cases would be brought before the court. Who could say—for example, can the Minister say that it is the Government's belief—that if a case was brought in relation to a partnership of fewer than five people then the European Court would give a different decision? I find that inconceivable.
Nor is there any argument—for I have not been able to find one, and I do not believe that one exists—for saying that partnerships are in a special position; that while we can include very small firms, we cannot for some reason include partnerships. Surely partnerships are squared. Their relationships are very similar to the relationships of very small firms of five persons or less. Therefore, if small firms are to be included then partnerships should be included.
Lord Monson: I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Baroness yet again. The two prerequisites for a successful partnership—I imagine, as I have never been a member of the professions—are, first, trust

529
between the partners; secondly, that the partners should hit it off well with one another. The smaller the partnership, the more important becomes the latter factor.
If the amendment became law, I believe that it would be unenforceable in practice. To the limited extent that it was enforceable and was enforced, it would lead to bad blood, and leave a sour taste in the mouth. It would go a long way towards crippling the partnership in question. What is more, I suspect that such a provision is almost superfluous in present-day circumstances. Whatever may have been the case 10, 20 or 30 years ago, competition nowadays within the professions, as much as in business, is so intense that nobody can afford the luxury of discriminating against a well-qualified applicant on trivial grounds. In the highly competitive environment in which we currently live, limited skills are at a premium. In other words, a meritocracy—which I imagine is what the noble Baroness is aiming at—does not have to be legislated for, because it evolves automatically. It is for that reason that I believe the amendment is misconceived.
Lord Trefgarne: It is of course the case that the European Court judgment did not specifically address this matter. However, when my noble friend Lady Platt raised it during the course of the Second Reading debate, my noble friend Lord Young indicated a degree of sympathy and said that he would look into the matter. I can confirm that the Government are indeed sympathetic to the principle behind this proposal. If my noble friend will withdraw her amendment, then the Government hope to bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I am most grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section came into force, this section shall expire unless its continuation in force has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment is not open to the same objections concerning a conflict with EEC law that faced Amendment No. 1. I trust therefore that it will be regarded a good deal more favourably for that reason.
Before I continue, and as it seems that there would be no other reasonable point at which this could be done, perhaps I may clear up a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, when she referred to the case of the lady who dismissed her gardener. I am well aware that the case I cited revolved around the Employment Protection Act and not the Sex Discrimination Act. The point I was trying to make was that after such a traumatic experience, the lady in question might very well prefer to employ only women in future. Under the clause as drafted, she would not be allowed to do so. It is important that that fact should be absorbed by the Committee and be reflected upon before the next stage.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord really suggesting that women are incapable of obscene language?
Lord Monson: Not in the slightest. In fact, we heard on Second Reading from a colleague of the noble Baroness, the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, just how far women could go in that direction. However, I believe that, if one is an elderly woman, being sworn at by another woman, is a bit different from being sworn at by a man—or so I would imagine.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, made it clear in what he said and implied during the course of our Second Reading debate that he was most unhappy about Clause 1 and hoped to be able before long to persuade the EC to change its views. He said:
"This ruling was a particularly hard one for us to accept".—[Official Report, 27/2/86; col. 1178.]
4.30 p.m.
Later he said:
"We have accordingly proposed within the Community that member states should have the power to exempt very small enterprises from national provisions which implement the equal treatment directive".
He went on to say:
"In the meantime, however, we are clearly bound to follow the court's judgment".
But he said it in such a way as to imply that he was extremely unhappy that this had to be the case. Later on, in winding up, he said:
"It is essential not to burden them"—
by that he meant small businesses—
"unnecessarily … They do not have legal and personnel departments and cannot easily devote time and resources to tribunal cases and understanding the complexities of indirect discrimination or height requirements".
He concluded by saying:
"I hope that in due course we can find some way round them"—
that is, the restrictions—
"and persuade our partners so that we can lift the burden".—[col. 1210.]
The case against the clause as it stands is so strong that it is reasonable to suppose that this Government, or their successors, will succeed in their efforts to so persuade the EC and will succeed within three years, whereupon Clause 1 will automatically become superfluous. If by some mischance this does not happen, it will be up to both Houses of Parliament to vote to renew the clause if they feel so inclined. That would seem to satisfy all the objections that can reasonably be made. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I find it very difficult, despite listening to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to understand the logic of this amendment. I am not surprised to have learned from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that in fact it was not their first choice. It seems to me that it is just possible to argue, as they did before, "Well, to hell with the Sex Discrimination Act, to hell with the European Court, we are not going to change our present legislation." That is damning but it is logical; but it has been defeated. It is just possible to argue, I suppose—and it seemed to me that a large part of the noble Lord's speech was arguing—to put the whole thing off for three years; rather in the way that the noble Lord, Lord

531
Glenarthur, suggested we should put off certain parts of the Shops Act for three years so that people can prepare for the onslaught.
However, that is not what the noble Lord is saying. He is not saying that we should give small firms three years to get ready to stop discriminating. He is saying that we should tell them they must stop discriminating for three years and after that they can get on with it. It is just possible to argue that they must comply for three or five years, and in that five years we will have a review to see whether discrimination has been eliminated from this area; so that there is an argument, as it were, at that point for taking it away.
But that is not what is being argued. What is being argued is that we should operate the Sex Discrimination Act in these areas for three years and at the end of three years, without any review, the clause shall expire; unless, of course, by that time both Houses of Parliament have decided to continue with it. I find it impossible to follow the logic of this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I find myself broadly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. The essence of my objection to this amendment remains as it was for the first amendment that we considered a few moments ago—that it runs wholly counter to the judgment which the European Court of Justice handed down on this matter.
The right way to redress this problem is to persuade the Council of Ministers to issue a new directive or to amend an earlier directive. That is the course we prefer to follow and is the course we are actively pursuing at least as far as the provision for small companies is concerned. I hope the noble Lord will not ask me to rehearse all the arguments which I recited a few moments ago, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, one question concerning the negotiations with the Council of Ministers? Are they, or will they be, carried on at ministerial level? If not, at what level will they be carried on?
Lord Trefgarne: What happens is that the matter is generally brought before the Council of Ministers by the European Commission and Ministers then consider the matter and reach a conclusion on it. It is, I know, open to a particular member state to persuade the European Commission to bring a matter before a particular council. There are a number of councils, as the noble Lady will be aware, and that is the course we prefer to follow.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said I was proposing to put off the clause for three years. That is rather curious. It is the opposite of what my amendment proposes; that it shall pass into law for three years, and when the Council of Ministers has been persuaded to change its mind, as one hopes, the clause will then lapse.
The noble Lord said that it was impossible to follow my logic. I have to say, with all due respect, that I find it impossible to follow his. The Minister hopes to persuade the Council of Ministers to change its
532
attitude. Certainly his right honourable friend does so and has made that clear. If Her Majesty's Government are successful then my amendment will pave the way perfectly for them because there will be no need for fresh legislation. Clause 1 would simply automatically lapse. There might have to be a few tidying up amendments in the schedules—I do not know about that—but Clause 1 would lapse and there would be no need for further legislation.
If Her Majesty's Government are successful in persuading the Commission to change its point of view so that it agrees that Clause 1 is superfluous, then in the absence of your Lordships or another place agreeing to this amendment or one like it, the Government will have to introduce fresh legislation to repeal Clause 1. Meanwhile, it will remain on the statute book and people will be harassed unnecessarily. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord will reply to what I have said.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not think I have much more to say to the noble Lord. We are doing our best, particularly in the area of the provisions for small firms, to get the directive changed, but it is not possible for us to do that unilaterally. Therefore, I cannot give the noble Lord any indication of how long it is likely to take.
The fact is that the European Court of Justice has found that our present legislative provisions will not do. Therefore, we have to correct the position, and that is why these provisions are now before your Lordships.
Lord McCarthy: May I explain my argument to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as I think he may have misunderstood me? I was trying to say that it would be logical but not lawful to postpone matters for three years—if that was what he wants; but I know that it is not—because at least one might argue that people who are affected would have to get ready for what is coming. But if you allow it to happen for three years and then stop it happening, that is both illogical and unlawful.
Lord Monson: Not really. If you are made to pass a law which you greatly dislike and which runs counter to the philosophy of your party—on previous occasions the Conservative Party has made it clear that it dislikes social engineering legislation of this nature when it interferes with the private lives of people—the normal and logical thing to do is to try to pave the way for repeal as soon as this is legally possible.
In the absence of such an amendment being inserted in the Bill it will take much longer. If and when Her Majesty's Government succeed in persuading the European Commission of the rightness of their case, which I am sure they will be able to do, it will mean that a Bill will have to be introduced into Parliament and go through all its stages in both Houses. Meanwhile, a bad clause will remain on the statute book and will have to be enforced whether or not Her Majesty's Government wish it to be enforced.
However, I think it would be better for all to reflect on what has been said, and perhaps we can postpone a decision on this matter until the next stage of the Bill;

533
but I reserve the right to bring this matter forward again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendments of Section 77 of 1975 Act]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert ("whether under a contract of service or apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the unusual thread of agreement between these Benches and the noble Lord the Minister may continue through this characteristically helpful amendment from us. It concerns the ambit of the new provision in Clause 2. Briefly, it may be said to relate to this. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 covers employment in a wide sense:
"under a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour".
In Clause 2 we find words such as "employed" but without that clear definition.
I am sure that there will be no disagreement between us on this. It is perhaps of importance that many women work under part-time, and more particularly casual and temporary, arrangements which do not always bring them clearly within the status of the ordinary employee. It is desirable that the provision in the Bill should cover the same ambit as that of the Act.
It may be said that it is covered anyway without our amendment, but we cannot fully accept that. Clause 2 refers to Section 77 of the 1975 Act. But elsewhere in the Bill (for example, in Clause 3) one finds reference to "employment of women" which does not cover exactly the same ambit as the provision in Section 82 of the Act. It therefore seemed to us important and useful to have a specific definition in the Bill. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that the amendment is superfluous. If the noble Lord will refer to Clause 2(7) he will see that it states that any expression used in the clause which is also used in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall have the same meaning as in that Act. I now refer him to the definition of "employment" in Section 82 of the 1975 Act which reads:
"'employment' means employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, and related expressions shall be construed accordingly".
I believe that that covers the anxiety to which the noble Lord referred, and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: That is the answer that I expected. I think that there are arguments for putting the phrase in in full, but, in view of the noble Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert ("or to all or any persons to whom such employment may be offered or who apply for such employment.").
The noble Lord said: This relates to a similar point which may not be answered so easily, at any rate in the same way. The 1975 Act deals with not only the rights of employees but also, to quote Section 6, arrangements made:
"for the purpose of determining who should be offered … employment",
and the terms on which the employer offers the employment. The Bill covers rules that are applicable to persons employed (and now the noble Lord confirms his understanding that it means employed in the wide sense). But, as we understand it, it does not deal with the applicant.
There is a further dimension to the argument, so it is not merely a matter of bringing the clause clearly within the same ambit as the 1975 Act. First, subsection (7) cannot be so clearly relied upon even as an argument for that. The second reason is this. Because of the link between Clause 2 of the Bill and Section 77 of the Act there is a procedure by which some people can go to the county court in respect of a contract which is unlawful; and the term "contract which is unlawful" is now to include the various items in Clause 2(1), such as collective agreements, rules made by the employer and the other rules which are there specified. If the rule made by an employer is open to the procedure under the county court provision in so far as it sets up something in the nature of a contract that is discriminatory against another party, and if there is the possibility that there is a county court jurisdiction, that is cause for concern about the clause. We shall no doubt hear something about the way that it works in the debate on whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
If that is so, the position of an applicant for a job is even more important. If these are rules that applicants must follow when applying for a job, and if they are in any way indirectly discriminatory (it is unlikely that they will be directly discriminatory), they will be arrangements which are made for the purpose of determining who should be offered the employment, and therefore they would be unlawful under Section 6. But under the clause they will not be immediately void under Section 77 of the Act.
It seems that there is a disparity. The application of the clause as it stands to rules made for employees who fall within the unlawfulness of the 1975 Act generally might allow for an action at a tribunal. It also would be void ipso facto and arguably might allow for a county court action. But the position of the applicant in regard to any rules made for applicants would not be anything like as strong. It certainly would not accord with the principle which, although it is not spelt out, is surely also inherent in the Luxembourg court judgment, of which we have heard so much this afternoon. In relation to applications for jobs it surely cannot be in accordance with the spirit of the directive that any discriminatory provision in rules concerning applicants for jobs should not themselves also be rendered ipso facto void.
On the position of the applicant who is introduced here via the amendment, I ask two things. First, should not applicants' rules be put on a par with employees' rules, where both are put forward by the employer? Secondly, should not applicants' remedies be parallel

535
with those of employees in the two different types of rules? I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I have to agree that there is a certain logic in the noble Lord's proposal, but I am afraid that I have to say that the Government have not had a full opportunity to consider what he has in mind. If he will be good enough to withdraw his amendment, we can agree to return to the matter at Report stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I was confident that the air of agreement would not be broken so quickly, and on that basis, without giving guarantees about future offers, I am happy to thank the noble Lord for what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
("(3A) Where any term of a collective agreement is void or unenforceable by reason of this section the agreement may be referred by any party to it or by the Secretary of State to the Central Arbitration Committee constituted under Section 10 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, to declare what amendments need to be made in the agreement so as to remove discrimination on grounds of sex.
(3B) Where on a reference under subsection (3A) above, the Central Arbitration Committee have declared the amendments to be made, then insofar as the terms and conditions of a person's employment are dependent on that agreement, whether by reason of a contract or otherwise, they shall be ascertained by reference to the agreement as so amended.
(3C) The Central Arbitration Committee on a reference under this section may specify different dates for different amendments which it declares under subsection (3A) above, but no such date shall be earlier than the date on which a reference is made to it.")
The noble Baroness said: As we know, the Government have introduced the Bill in order to comply with a decision of the European Court. However, all that Clause 2 does is to declare that discriminatory terms in collective agreements are unenforceable and void in law. There is no separate mechanism whereby a term of an agreement can be challenged. There is no mechanism whereby a discriminatory provision can be amended. The main effect of Clause 2, if left unamended, is to say that unenforceable terms of collective agreements are unenforceable if they are sexually discriminatory. I wonder whether that is really complying with the European Court judgment. I say that because I want to be helpful.
Our record so far on European law on sex discrimination has not been particularly good. We have been forced before now to comply with European Community law in sex discrimination. We had to do so in the matter of equal pay for work of equal value. We have been forced to do so here on collective agreements; and, of course, there is the recent decision in the case of Miss Marshall who won her plea on compulsory retirement age, again in the European Court.
It would be a great pity if we should fail again in this regard because we had not given proper attention to the mechanism for complying with the requirement on collective agreements. Instead of proposing to refer collective agreements to the mechanism that already
536
exists under Section 3 of the Equal Pay Act, the Bill proposes to repeal Section 3 altogether—in other words, to remove the Central Arbitration Committee from the scene altogether where collective agreements on sex discrimination are concerned. It seems to me that this is entirely mistaken. Section 3 of the Equal Pay Act was introduced because of widespread discrimination in collective agreements, most of which at the time specified separate men's rates and women's rates. It was decided then to give the Central Arbitration Committee power to intervene in collective agreements due to the fact that there was on both sides of industry—unions and employers—a degree of acceptance of discrimination because it had been traditional and conventional.
Section 3 is, however, confined to explicit discrimination. Apparently this has been brought to an end in most cases. However, sometimes the equalisation that took place following the passage of the Act was more apparent than real. Previous differentials in rates that had been described unlawfully as men's rates and women's rates were simply redescribed as rates for different grades. Thus, new grades were invented that perpetrated the explicit discrimination in a hidden and indirect form by the simple device of making no reference to either men or women.
The equal pay directive of 1975 of the European Commission requires that collective agreements which are discriminatory whether in an open or hidden form are to be rendered null and void. In discharging its duties under Section 3, the Central Arbitration Committee—I happen to be a member myself—frequently looked beneath the apparently neutral grades and compared them with previous discriminatory grades. When it found that the so-called discriminatory grades were in fact the previous men's rates and women's rates under a different name, it required the employer to rectify and to equalise the collective agreement.
However, in 1979 a judgment in a case known as the Hymac case stated that the CAC had exceeded its powers in going behind agreements in that way and that it could only deal with agreements that were directly and explicitly discriminatory. The EOC in its report on the Hymac case in 1980 expressed concern that the powers of the CAC had been so restricted. In fact, it said:
"The effect of this decision ensures that only certain direct forms of discrimination in relation to pay are capable of elimination under the Equal Pay Act".
As we have seen, the Secretary of State in the Second Reading debate two weeks ago confirmed that the Bill before the House does in fact deal with indirect discrimination. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, it leaves it there. How does it get enforced? The Central Arbitration Committee is a highly respected body. It is tripartite. It has representatives, usually very senior, from both sides of industry, and an independent chairman. Its decisions have been very helpful to industrial relations.
Collective agreements are a sensitive area. The CAC experience in dealing with them would be invaluable. Its proceedings are relatively informal. Its members strive to produce an answer that will assist both parties to reach a satisfactory accommodation. It is for this reason that the Trades Union Congress has urged upon

537
the Government that the CAC be given a role in sex discrimination cases particularly when it comes to collective agreements. Before the Hymac judgment, to which I have referred, restricted its scope of activity, the CAC performed a valuable role in so far as indirect discrimination in collective agreements is concerned. There is now an opportunity to do so in relation to both indirect and direct discrimination. Without some such mechanism we are unlikely to be found fully complying with the European Court judgment. We may find ourselves once again being forced to amend legislation that is already sufficiently complex. Can we not try to get it right from the beginning? I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I have listened to the noble Baroness with great care but, I must say, also with a certain dismay. She has drawn a picture of a world where, 10 years after the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts came into force, trade unions and employers are knowingly parties to discriminatory collective agreements and are not prepared or are not able to do anything about it until an outside body, the CAC, tells them what to do. I hope that this is not the case. The noble Baroness knows a good deal more about trade unions than I do. Perhaps she will be able to tell me why trade unions are signing up collective agreements that provide for unlawful discrimination against their members, or, if the agreements are old ones left over from before 1975, why they have not been changed during the last 10 years.
Maybe the noble Baroness will tell me that trade unions are trying their hardest to get discrimination eliminated from collective agreements and that employers are intransigent and insist on the agreements being maintained. If that is the case, trade unions have a good way of putting pressure on employers. They can support an individual employee affected by the offending agreement in a complaint to an industrial tribunal. If that individual wins the case and the employer still insists on maintaining the agreement, they can back another case, and another and another. If the agreement really is providing for unlawful discrimination, those employees will all win their cases and the employer may be faced with a heavy bill for compensation or back pay. It is very much in his interests in that case to renegotiate the agreement.
Clause 2 is said to be ineffective. We are asked how it is to be enforced. There is no specific enforcement mechanism provided because none is necessary. From the time that the legislation comes into force, terms in collective agreements and the rules of employers, employers' associations, trade unions and professional bodies will simply be void in so far as they lead to discrimination that is unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Equal Pay Act. This will give the trade union that has been endeavouring in vain to get a discriminatory agreement amended an important lever. If that union is confident that the agreement is resulting in unlawful acts, either because it is manifestly discriminatory or because one of the employees affected has won an individual case, the union will be able to inform the employer that a term of the agreement is now void and that he had better sit round a table and negotiate a new non-discriminatory
538
term. If the employer is intransigent, the union still has at its disposal, as it has had all along, the weapon of backing a whole string of tribunal cases.
I should add that the clause is modelled closely on Section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which, so far as I know, no noble Lord has had occasion to criticise. The original Section 77 makes void provisions in contracts which provide for unlawful discrimination against a third party but leaves it to the signatories to the contract to substitute a new non-discriminatory provision to fill the gap. Let me make it clear that individuals who suffer unlawful discrimination in employment whether or not as a result of collective agreement already have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal and obtain redress. This clause was never intended either by the Government or by the European Court of Justice to set up an elaborate system of enforcement to work in tandem or indeed in competition with the effective means of redress that has been available since 1975 to victims of discrimination at work.
The European Community equal treatment directive requires that,
"any provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment which are included in collective agreements shall be, or may be, declared null and void or may be amended".
The European Court of Justice accepted that Section 77 implemented the directive in relation to legally-binding collective agreements but held that non-binding collective agreements have important consequences for employment relationships and that the lack of corresponding provision in such agreements meant that the directive was not fully implemented.
In our view, the court saw a formal voiding provision as an important presentational measure that would set the tone for collective agreements and filter through to practical results on the ground. The European Council of Ministers Legal Services Department shares this interpretation. Explaining a parallel requirement in the draft occupational social security directive currently under discussion, it said:
"the provision in question could act as a warning or have a dissuasive effect on the parties when setting up [new] schemes".
5 p.m.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who suggested at Second Reading that the Sex Discrimination Bill is part of a concerted attack by the Government on the CAC. I can assure him that that is not the case at all. Then he talked about the Wages Bill removing the CAC's jurisdiction in relation to Wages Council orders. The reason for that is simple and logical. There will be no scope for different pay rates for men and women in the new simplified wages orders which we shall have as a result of the Wages Bill, so there will be nothing for the CAC to look at.
It is true that the Bill before us abolishes the CAC's jurisdiction under the Equal Pay Act, but that jurisdiction has not been used in the past three years and has only been used three times during the past six years. The Government are not sweeping away an active and vibrant procedure and thus denying employees a right which they have been enjoying. Rather, they have decided that it is not necessary to revive a procedure which has fallen into disuse.

539
My noble friend Lady Platt urged my noble friend the Secretary of State at Second Reading to encourage parties to collective agreements to undertake a systematic review of them, to identify and eliminate directly or indirectly discriminatory provisions. The Government certainly hope that negotiators will act on void agreements in the light of this Bill and will remove barriers to equality between men and women at work. The revision of discriminatory collective agreements is surely best left to the experts; that is, to the parties who originally negotiated them and who have practical day-to-day knowledge of the industry to which they relate. In the light of these considerations I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Seear: I had never previously thought that the Minister could be naive, but I find it astonishing—and it is easier perhaps for me to say this than it is for the Labour Front Bench to say it—that he should have such touching faith in the attitude of trade unions toward sex discrimination and the belief that one can leave it safely to trade unions and employers in negotiating collective agreements to make sure that no discriminatory elements occur, particularly if indirect discrimination is taken into account.
The noble Lord the Minister is perhaps not as aware as people who have been concerned with these matters—why should he be?—how easy it is for indirect discrimination to creep in without anyone intending it. Indirect discrimination is not, as is often thought, a particularly devious kind of discrimination which is worked into agreements in order to trap the unwary. It is discrimination which occurs because the action which is being taken reflects traditional practice, and it has never occurred either to employers or to trade union representatives—most of whom, with certain notable exceptions, are in fact men—to imagine that there is indirect discrimination in the agreements which they are negotiating. So it is quite unreasonable, not to say naive, to assume that it can be left entirely to the negotiators to see that this matter is properly handled.
In any case, even if in the vast majority of cases no discrimination could creep into a collective agreement, in many instances the law exists not on the assumption that the vast number of people will want to break it but because there are a small number who will try to evade good practice. That is the basis of all law. We pass laws knowing perfectly well that in nine out of ten cases, perhaps more, people will not break the law or commit the act against which the law is directed even if there were no law there; but the law is passed because there is a minority of people who will try, and that applies very emphatically in this case. There remains a minority among both trade unions and employers who would be only too happy by collusion—let me put it bluntly—to continue discriminatory practices which have served them very well in the past. If the noble Lord the Minister thinks that it is a thing of the past, I fear he had better think again.
The noble Lord the Minister goes on to say that if perchance some discrimination creeps into a collective agreement, then the women can take the case to an industrial tribunal. Individual women, whether or not they are backed by their trade union, who bring a case
540
against the employer find that it is a very difficult and invidious thing to do, especially in present-day circumstances. If a woman makes herself unpopular by taking her employer to a tribunal, whether she wins or loses she feels, not infrequently with justice, that her future in that organisation is not very bright, and with unemployment as it is very few women are prepared to go along that track.
For the Minister to say that if they lose a first case they can take another and another and another (which is what he said) seems to me to parody what is likely to happen. Can he seriously imagine a whole series of women—the first having lost her case, another will come along and lose and another will come along and lose? That is not how life is. Therefore it is highly desirable that there should be some general procedure, such as was built into the Equal Pay Act and the CAC.
Prior to the case which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the CAC did an extremely good job in dealing with these cases. Why can the Minister not accept the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, which reinstates the CAC? I can confirm that the CAC is greatly respected in very wide circles as an appropriate medium for dealing with these matters. If the noble Lord were to accept this amendment it would make it far easier to achieve genuine non-discrimination in all collective agreements, which is what I believe he wishes to do.
Baroness Lockwood: I must express my disappointment at the Minister's response to this amendment. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concern about indirect discrimination not being easily detected by either side of industry. I also share with her some concern about the collusion which occurs from time to time. One of the weaknesses of the Sex Discrimination Act, as was shown by the Equal Opportunities Commission, has been the inability to have collective agreements referred to the CAC on a wide enough basis.
The Minister suggests that the remedy is to take one case after another. Let me remind him that in the early days of the Sex Discrimination Act—I think it was in 1976—we had something like 180 cases brought to tribunals by individual women and the area chairman of the tribunal asked the Equal Opportunities Commission to intervene. He said that it was not the role of tribunals to deal with cases like that. As a result, the Equal Opportunities Commission conducted one of its first formal investigations, into Electrolux.
That is not the only incident that has occurred where it seemed to the commission absolutely imperative that we should have some organisation which could look objectively at collective agreements. Under certain limited conditions, until the Hymac case, the CAC did this. It was not always a case of the CAC saying, "What you are implying is absolutely right—for example, that these women should have equal pay with those men" On occasion, the CAC said that the whole of the pay scale was discriminatory, and changed some of the people on the scale to different levels. I am sure that that type of action would not have been taken had it been left to the trade unions alone to take the matter up with the employers. When trade unions and employers meet there is always a

541
question of give and take—"We'll take this if you'll give that". We are concerned here with discrimination, and when discrimination occurs there is no question of give and take. If the noble Lord were to look at the recommendations for amendments put forward by the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1981, he will realise that that was one of the central amendments that was being put forward.
My only concern about this particular amendment—and I know that it is my own fault for not taking the matter further—is that even this amendment leaves it to the partners to an agreement, the two sides of industry and the Minister, to refer a case. Perhaps it would have been better if we had either included an industrial tribunal following a successful case or given the Equal Opportunities Commission itself the opportunity to refer such a case to a tribunal. If the Minister were prepared to reconsider the matter I would ask him to take that point into consideration. However, if he is not prepared to reconsider the matter I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: As the Minister has referred to me, I think it is necessary to stress—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the Liberal Benches—how extraordinary was the answer that he gave to the amendment. If the Government want to be clearly quit of any suggestion that they are somehow prejudiced or look unkindly upon the Central Arbitration Committee, they must make a case, first, for abolishing the jurisdiction which it has, and, secondly, for not extending that jurisdiction in the obviously sensible way, not necessarily from any party point of view but from the point of view of industrial relations.
As has been said, the CAC did a marvellous job until the High Court held it up in a silly judgment about three years ago. There should have been legislation to bring back the jurisdiction of the CAC, but that was not done. Moreover, not only can the CAC's jurisdiction be brought back, but it can be extended and made useful in the following way. Let us suppose that there is an agreement—or I would have said "employer's rules", but being very moderate we have not included the employer's rules in this amendment, at any rate not at this stage—which is indirectly discriminatory. Such agreements exist, and since our society is discriminatory in its bones such agreements are likely to occur from time to time despite all the efforts, however good or bad. If that happens, then one sensible way of dealing with it is to take it to a body which can make a determination as to its legal status, but which can also make not exactly a judgment in the old sense but a judgment which is infused with industrial sense from the persons who sit upon it and from the way in which it conducts its relationship with the parties, which the Central Arbitration Committee has done so many times. In other words, by that procedure one can perhaps over a short period of time bring about equality in an area of industry. That is one picture.
The picture which the Government present us with is finding such an agreement and then having 100, 300, 500 or 1,000 industrial tribunal cases, all of them brought by employees who, as the noble Baroness said,
542
will be much at risk in their own personal positions, and at the end of it, what?—no doubt some more cases and some negotiation if the employer is obdurate, which will then give rise to even more. That is not a sensible way in which to conduct affairs. The sensible way in which to conduct affairs is of course to allow those individual rights, but to provide also an avenue through which the parties or the Secretary of State—and I take the point made by the noble Baroness about the deficiency of the amendment in this respect; indeed, why not have the Equal Opportunities Commission?; but it is not in our text—can go to a body and say, "We think this breaks the law. We think that it is indirectly discriminatory", because that is what it will be about, and "In looking at it will you give us a declaration and will you also" (as it should have jurisdiction to do) "give us a set of pay structures that will bring about equality in a sensible industrial manner?"
What is wrong with that? The Minister says that there are not any such cases, or at least he hopes that there are not. We all hope that there are not. However, let us suppose that there is one that involves 50,000 workers. Why not have that jurisdiction? What is wrong with it? Unless the Government can answer that point, people will suspect that the Government do not like the CAC.
Lord Trefgarne: We have nothing against the CAC, but I believe that we are at risk of over-egging the pudding in this particular matter. As is common ground between us, the industrial tribunals already have a role to play here and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, reminded us, so does the Equal Opportunities Commission. So what we are discussing is whether there should be a third channel for these problems.
If nobody realises that the agreement is unlawfully discriminatory, there is not much use in having the CAC procedures which are proposed because, of course, the matter would never get to them anyway. If the unlawful discrimination is purely accidental and is discovered, then, of course, the negotiators will change it at the earliest opportunity. However, if that fails, then there is the avenue to which I have referred; namely, the industrial tribunal procedure. If that fails, and if the persons concerned do not like the prospect of going on more than one occasion to the industrial tribunal, then the Equal Opportunities Commission can be seized of the matter.
Baroness Lockwood: Will the Minister give way? I am sorry I did not fully elaborate on the case. Even after the commission had conducted its investigation, the case still had to go through the industrial tribunal.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Baroness says and I know that she has great experience in these matters. The industrial tribunal will take very seriously the observations which the Equal Opportunities Commission makes to them, as, indeed, will all responsible employers and all responsible trade unions.
I must say that I am persuaded that the arrangements proposed without the benefit of the CAC in this instance are the best ones, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. I had expected that there would be a different reception to an amendment which, as I said originally, was intended to be helpful, because we are seeking to provide a mechanism for enforcing what we believe the European Court is telling us we should do. I agreed absolutely with the noble Baroness Lady Seear when she said that prejudice is traditional and conventional, and I made that point when I first moved my amendment. It is because that is very deeply engrained that we need some mechanism for dealing with it.
When the Equal Pay Act 1975 was first introduced, the CAC was given a quite specific role in regard to collective agreements. As a member of the CAC I believe that we did a very good job until we had the Hymac judgment. The Hymac judgment prevented us from dealing with other than absolute explicit and direct discrimination. As a result there have been very few cases since then.
We now have an opportunity to allow the CAC to do the job which I believe it was intended to do in the first place, and to look at agreements from the point of view of whether they are indirectly or directly discriminatory. I believe that that is the appropriate mechanism for doing so.
I was amazed to hear the Minister say that he does not want an elaborate system of enforcement, that he believes that the CAC would be an elaborate system of enforcement, and then go on to suggest that we should take hundreds of cases through the ITs. As a trade union official who has taken a number of cases to ITs, I would much sooner go once before the CAC on a collective agreement than before ITs for hundreds of people. I do not follow the logic of the Minister's argument.
I very much regret that, as he does not propose, as far as I can see, to accept what we have been saying on this side of the Committee about enforcement and the CAC, I must press my amendment. I strongly believe that unless we have some mechanism of enforcement we shall not be complying fully with the European Court judgment and we shall not be doing justice to many people who otherwise will suffer under continuously discriminatory agreements.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Caradon, L.

Amherst, E,

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Collison, L.

Banks, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Denington, B.

Brockway, L.

Diamond, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

544

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Grimond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayter, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Heycock, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hunt, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Listowel, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McNair, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mais, L.

White, B.

Mar, C.

Wigoder, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Melchett, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fortescue, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Allerton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Alport, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glanusk, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bauer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bellwin, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Caccia, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caithness, E.

Ingrow, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Chelwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Davidson, V.

De La Warr, E.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Molson, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Munster, E.

545

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soames, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Somers, L.

Onslow, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Orkney, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pender, L.

Suffield, L.

Porritt, L.

Swinfen, L.

Portland, D.

Swinton, E. [Tewller.]

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Reigate, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rodney, L.

Tryon, L.

Rugby, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vinson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Selkirk, E.

Wise, L.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of restrictions and equal protection for workers.
.—(1) In this section the relevant enactments are the provisions of the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961, which are mentioned in sections 3 and 4 below and in Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and any subordinate legislation made under or by reference to those provisions.
(2) Subject to the conditions in subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend any provision in the relevant enactments, or any part thereof, so as to guarantee equal conditions to men and women with such consequential or transitional amendments as seem to him appropriate (in this section called an "equal protection order").
(3) The conditions are—

(a) the Secretary of State shall have published a final report in accordance with this section containing such recommendations as he thinks appropriate; and

(b) not less than one year shall have passed since the day on which this Act was passed.

(4) No final report shall be published unless

(a) the Secretary of State has—

(i) consulted such employers, trade unions and other persons as seem to him appropriate;

(ii) sought the views of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Health and Safety Commission, and

(iii) published a draft report setting out his interim proposals; and

(b) six months have passed since the publication of a draft report by the Secretary of State.

(5) Where either the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Health and Safety Commission at any time proposes to the Secretary of State that a provision in a relevant enactment is, or may be, an appropriate subject for an equal protection order and no order has been made under section 6(3) below in respect of that provision, the Secretary of State shall not make an order under section 6(3) below in respect of that provision unless the conditions of subsection (3) are satisfied.
(6) Section 77 of the 1975 Act shall not apply to a term in a collective agreement or rule to which section 2 of this Act applies by reason only that it contains or applies the terms of an equal protection order.").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 9 in the names of myself and my noble friends. In our view this is an important amendment which takes the noble Minister at his word; that is to say, the Secretary of
546
State said at Second Reading on 27th February, at col. 1209 of Hansard:
"It is important to remove restrictions on night work and on night work for women, but we should remove any restriction with care".
When I read that I thought that it was at any rate within distance of the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. In describing so fully for noble Lords the 1979 Equal Opportunities Commission Report she stressed that the commission proposed that the provisions in the legislation concerned which deal with women's hours, conditions and so on, should be repealed, but that there was a serious qualification in that minimum standards of welfare should be specified, and the like; and that we should do it with care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concluded her second reading speech by proposing what I thought was a most interesting proposal, to which I suspect we may well come back: that we should look at it carefully by a committee of the House or, as she put it more generally, that we should get down to looking at what we require in this whole field in the year 1986. That meant, as I understood it, looking in a more pragmatic way than is suggested in this Bill.
We were pleased to see the general character of the code of practice suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, which in a sense I would hope could be found within the ambit of the thinking in this clause. May I explain in four short points what the clause aims to do, and does subject to any drafting defects which it may well have? It says, first, that the Government should look at the circumstances of the relevant industries case by case. Secondly, it speaks of positively encouraging the Government to repeal discriminatory provisions in our law—that is, as was established at Second Reading, a common aim—and doing so by positive measures where they are appropriate in part or parts of the legislation with qualifications, amendments and transitional arrangements as appropriate in what we have dubbed, for want of a better name, an equal treatment order by subordinate legislation applying to men and women alike, whether it be on night work in bakeries or in types of factories or types of shift work as is found appropriate. In the amendment we do not pretend to know the answer. We say that, on the evidence produced so far, nobody knows the answer, or how far an equal protection order could be made; but we are sure there are such cases, and I shall come on to that in a moment.
Thirdly, we say that before doing that and before executing the order to repeal any of the provisions of the relevant legislation, the new clause would require the Minister to consult the obvious parties, including employers, unions and others in the industry, and specifically, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Health and Safety Commission.
Fourthly, the consultation should give, and the clause would give, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Health and Safety Commission an independent role in asking the Minister to conduct a proper inquiry into the circumstances of an industry and into a particular type of practice if they thought that there was ground for an equal treatment order, and that would mean before the repeal. For example, some of the sections that will be repealed concern Sunday work. There has been so much debate in this

547
Chamber about Sunday work that it is extraordinary to find in a Bill subsequent to that debate that the Government have put in a couple of places where protective legislation on Sunday work for women can be repealed without considering the possibility that perhaps in some cases that might be open to extension to men as well, at least in part.
In other words, our aim in the amendment is to attempt a pragmatic approach towards equality and to say that equality does not come about only by levelling down the legislation to zero. There are cases where the legislation can be levelled up. Those cases should be considered and where good cases are to be found that order should be made. That is a much more flexible approach. We know that there are such cases. The baking industry was much discussed on Second Reading. On reading that debate it is impossible to find as a conclusion that there is no problem with night work. There is a problem with night work for both men and women workers and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union has made this clear a number of times to the Government and has proposed a number of times that the legislation be made equally applicable.
The Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Young, used the same theme throughout his speech. He said once that all this legislation was outmoded; once that it was outdated; once that it was burdensome; once that it was out of place; twice that it stopped sensible arrangements and five times that it was unnecessary. Yet in no way did he tell us why or whether it was always unnecessary and whether some things should be done before final repeal, even about transport arrangements for night workers, welfare facilities for night workers or shift workers or about the real conditions of people in factories. He did not tell us whether it was not the case that a woman in respect of whom this protective legislation was taken away might be exploited in a way that everybody ought to condemn and that perhaps some thought should be given to that, and perhaps also to the men alongside her. If this legislation is taken away from some industrial structures one breaks up patterns of bargaining which have nothing to do with discrimination against men, women or young persons. The repeal of some of these provisions may rub off on the working conditions of young workers too, albeit that the Government are not changing them in a formal sense.
However, it is not just the baking industry. We have had inquiries and commissions before every important piece of legislation in this field. We have had it since 1844. The Government like talking about the ancient nature of the legislation; but it is not just 19th century legislation that was preceded by committees and commissions. Throughout the whole period of a century and a half all types of administration have had inquiries before they have made major change. That was true in 1847: it was true in 1860: it was true in 1867: it was true in 1874: it was true in 1878: it was true in 1891: it was true in 1901: it was true in 1920: it was true in 1936: in 1937 and in 1960 and also in 1974. This is the first time that a major change will be instigated without a major inquiry into the condition of the industries.
Compared with what is being done now the procedures of Stanley Baldwin's Government in 1935 were the peak of enlightenment. When in 1935 the Bill was introduced on employment and women and young persons' hours to make provisions for what is now Section 97 of the Factories Act (which is being lightly repealed for women in the schedule to the Bill) the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Lloyd, was able to talk about the committee of inquiry. Just so that the Minister will know, this occurred on 17th December, 1935 at col. 1693 of Hansard. Mr. Lloyd talked about the committee's conclusions on health of the workers. He talked about the problem of continuity of education in terms of those who work this type of shift work. He talked about the other conditions and he even said:
"One of the first things I did when I realised that I had to introduce this Bill was to visit some of the works concerned and talk to some of the workers".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/35; Col. 1604.]
When did the noble Lord the Minister or any of his colleagues last do that? No, my Lords, this is a piece of legislation born of principle. I do not say dogma, although I could do so. I do not say ideology although I should. I say principle; a principle which is out of contact with the real world because it does not come into contact with the conditions of the workers concerned. We are constantly told that this is a burden on business and without it there will be more jobs. No one in Britain today could fail to listen to that argument with respect. One cannot have three or four million people increasingly without work and not pay that argument respect. But we cannot pay much respect when there is little to link the beginning and the end of the sentence.
Where is the link in the increase of jobs? I have talked to people about these provisions and their repeal. I have heard as many arguments for jobs falling as I have for any extra job. I have heard as many arguments that workers will be pushed into conditions where at the moment they and their union have some argument against and that that may give rise to fewer posts in that particular shop. I do not know that that is very many, but I certainly have not heard any argument whatever that links the specific step that the Government are taking on repealing this legislation for these workers to the conclusion that there are jobs.
If the Minister thinks that there is anything in the survey in Burdens on Business, then he and I perhaps could go through it at some quiet moment. I am confident that he will find and I will find nothing whatever in that survey that in any way suggests—except for a mild comment in the conclusions written by the Government and, I suspect, by the co-ordinating Minister, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Norman Tebbit—that the removal of this legislation perhaps would be something which might be thought about.
My noble friends and I wish to make absolutely clear that in so far as the reasons for this legislation that have come through to us historically are discrimination between men and women, then, of course, it must go. What we are saying in these amendments concerns the manner of its going. We are saying: do not the Government (because they are the only body that can intervene since they are in charge of the

549
repeal) owe a responsibility at least to consider and inform themselves with the Equal Opportunities Commission, with the employers and the unions and with the Health and Safety Commission, and to be given the power—and we hope they will want it—to make an equal protection order, to the extent and with modifications, that any part of this legislation seems to be appropriate.
This, it seems to us, is a better reaction. We still hope that the Government will consider it favourably, because if they do not their only stance will be the same stance as that of John Bright when he faced Lord Shaftesbury's factory reforms. He said that this was a campaign of mock humanity, that it was an interference with the freedom of industry—freedom of industry, Burdens on Business, I do not think he quite got up to that phrase—and that workers, and I quote him:
"should work because in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread".
That is one attitude which one has found in Britain many many times. If that is the Government's attitude, let them say so. We still hope that it is not. We hope they will take the powers indicated by this amendment and be fair to the workers who are involved in this matter, so that inquiry can take place and so that equal protection can be given at a higher level where it is appropriate than mere repeal of all these legislative provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I sincerely hope that the Government will take heed of this amendment. If they cannot accept it, will they at least say that they will take it away and look at it, The Minister is something of a polymath, which we know, in that he appears here talking about defence one day, foreign affairs the next and industrial relations and discrimination the next. This is asking a bit much of anybody, as I would be the first to agree. But there is a breath-taking simplicity about the Government's attitude to this whole question. I agree absolutely with what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said about the protective legislation. In my view, it is high time that it was revised, and revised in a non-discriminatory way. Does the Minister really understand that there are 150 years of experience behind this; that there is a great volume of scientific work behind it? Has he consulted with the occupational medicine people? Has he consulted with the industrial nurses? Has he read the reports of the factory inspectorate? There is a long history of working at what is appropriate protection for people at work.
This attitude that you can sweep it all away, just like that, is almost unbelievable in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said of the apparent total absence of any kind of inquiry which has gone on before this had been decided. We have the opportunity now to make what seems to me a real step forward; to decide—and there is no need, as I see it, to have this clause in this legislation immediately—to have some kind of inquiry as to what, in the light of the circumstances of today, is necessary and appropriate protection for both men and women in work.
This can be divided into a number of different categories because the protection that is needed is not the same in all areas. But simply to take the line that you ignore all the work that has been done in the past,
550
that you ignore all the experience of people who have worked in this field and, in the light of the wisdom of this Government, on a basis of common sense, the light of Nature—which burns pretty dim in some people—that you can afford just to disregard all that has gone on in the past seems quite extraordinary. I beg the Government to say that they will look at this whole question again.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, began by saying that I was something of a polymath. If she will forgive me for saying so, so is she. She, too, appears on many topics—greatly, I was going to say, to the benefit of your Lordships.
Baroness Seear: In a previous discussion, I said that the noble Lord was being somewhat naive. I was making something of an amende honorable in that case.
Lord Trefgarne: I stand corrected. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, recited a great number of legislative provisions that have applied to this matter down the ages and explained, I think, that there was a major inquiry or an inquiry of some sort, at least, ahead of almost every one of the measures to which he referred. He referred, too, in very complimentary tones to my late right honourable friend Mr. Baldwin—or did he become my late noble friend? The fact of the matter is that we have not plucked this provision out of the air, just like that. We are following the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission in their 1979 report called Health and Safety Legislation: Should we distinguish between men and women? Of course, we are not in the business of sweeping away every protection in this area. Employers have a duty to both men and women under their general duties, for example under the Health and Safety etc. Act. Any unsafe practice is one that comes within the ambit of that legislation.
This amendment seeks to provide an alternative basis to the order-making power proposed under Clause 6(3) of this Bill. The Secretary of State may still reveal the relevant enactments under Clause 6(3) except where either the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Health and Safety Commission has proposed that provision is or may be an appropriate subject for an equal protection order. If so, an alternative procedure must be followed. In practice this amendment seeks to impose further delays before the discriminatory restrictions on hours of work can be removed. If the HSC or the EOC were so minded, they could prevent the Secretary of State exercising his powers under Clause 6(3) and force him to follow the procedure set out in the new clause.
May I look at the details of this alternative procedure? It involves a time lapse of at least a year during which a lot must happen. The Secretary of State must conduct extensive consultations with employers and trade unions and must seek the views of the Health and Safety Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. He must also publish a draft report of interim proposals. Then, nothing can happen until a final report is published setting out the proposals for amendments. After all this, the Secretary of State may finally make the so-called equal

551
protection order amending any of the relevant enactments. This amendment seems to be based upon the hypothesis that delay is always a good thing, that action by its very nature is always over-hasty. But I do not think that such a hypothesis bears examination. Further delay and consultation are unlikely to achieve anything.
Let me explain why. The issue has been discussed for six years, ever since the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended repeal of these restrictions in 1979. Before that, the commission had consulted widely and given the whole matter careful consideration. In 1979, the Health and Safety Commission were asked to consider the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals on women's hours but were unable to reach a consensus view on how this discriminatory legislation could be reformed. However, the HSC made no recommendation that health and safety considerations argued the need for different statutory conditions and hours for women as against men.
Despite this lapse of more than six years, total agreement on the way forward has not been reached. That is why the Government have decided to act now. Experience suggests that further consultation would not achieve anything. With the benefit of this hindsight, are we really to believe that suddenly, in a year or whatever, consensus would finally be achieved, that all the arguments would be resolved and that all sides would give the green light to the proposals? I think that is wishful thinking. At the end of the further consultation period the Secretary of State would be no further on than now. He would still have to take a decision, weighing in the balance the same arguments as the Government have taken account of already. Delay would achieve nothing except relegating women to suffer continued discrimination and continued frustration of their employment opportunities, and employers would be left to labour under a continued bureaucratic burden.
No reasonable person can possibly accuse the Government of being over-hasty and precipitate in this matter. Due consideration has been given; the time is now ripe for action, and I ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I have some difficulty with the amendment from my noble friend on this matter, and I also have some difficulty with the Minister's response. I understand the views of my noble friend in moving the amendment, and I must say I share his concern about the growing level of insecurity for employees—a level which has grown since 1979 when the Equal Opportunities Commission presented its report.
Nevertheless the process he is suggesting is somewhat similar to that which the Equal Opportunities Commission itself undertook in reviewing this legislation. Not only did we take evidence from a wide number of organisations, as I said at Second Reading, but we also met representatives from employers' organisations and unions in the baking, chemical, clothing and footwear, engineering, mining, textile, pottery, iron, steel and glass industries,
552
because those are the industries most concerned with this particular legislation.
In the light of the evidence and the discussions with these organisations, the commission came to its conclusions. Those, as has been said, were not unanimous. There was dissent within the commission and then there was dissent within the Health and Safety Commission when they looked at our report. But it is not true for the Minister to say that he is following the advice of the Equal Opportunities Commission, because the Bill we have before us contains only half the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission. That commission's report—I have it here, but I doubt whether the Minister himself has had the opportunity to look at the many clauses it contains: much wider, incidentally, than the Bill that we are considering today—did ask that simultaneously we should introduce measures to protect existing women employees who took on that employment on the basis that they would not be expected to undertake night work. We asked that there should be protection for parents with children so that they would not be required to undertake night work, and we also asked that there should be welfare provisions included in a code of practice.
The Minister, in supporting the Bill we have before us, made no reference to those very serious qualifications that the commission had and I think it is a great pity that, having waited six years before having an amending Bill, the amending Bill should be selective in the recommendations it chose to implement from the commission. Nevertheless I see the only way forward as being the repealing of these particular measures. We did not have agreement in the EOC and we did not have agreement in the Health and Safety Commission because there was a difference of view between the two sides of industry. I very much fear that even if the amendment which my noble friend has moved were to be implemented we should have the same delay in implementing the provisions.
I should like two possible courses of action to be followed. I should like the Minister to say, "No, I can't accept this amendment but I will come back with other amendments which will contain the other recommendations from the Equal Opportunities Commission". Failing his saying that, I hope we would support some of the further amendments which are on the Marshalled List this evening.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: There has been an interesting debate on our amendment. I would say to my noble friend that I follow her nearly all the way. On one point perhaps I should say that this amendment is not meant to deal with precisely the rights of existing employees. It may be that some of those rights have fallen into the gap between this and other amendments; but it was not the function of this amendment and the new clause to deal with them entirely—although of course they may, by a side wind, be provided for.
I accept there may well be disagreement in some of the industries my noble friend named although in the area of automatic glassworks and so on the Government are not repealing the provisions. It is very interesting that they have kept some of the provisions in glass, lead and so on. They are much more selective

553
than the noble Lord the Minister suggested. But these are the broad areas of women's hours regulations and of conditions regulations in factories. We are also dealing with mines and quarries and especially, as so many other speakers have said, with night work.
If the noble Lord the Minister says that our hypo-thesis is wrong because action is always over-hasty, he is absolutely right and that is not our hypothesis. If he says that six years ago examination was made but total agreement was not reached by the examining bodies, then he is absolutely right. But now for the Government to simply come along and by a clean sweep deal with all these provisions is surely absolutely wrong. It cannot be right, as has been said already, that all these provisions are being dealt with merely because they have existed for 150 years; there is something ironic in my defending provisions because they have been there for 150 years and the noble Lord the Minister attacking them for that same reason. That surely cannot be the nature of our debate. The fact that they have existed for 150 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, is because they have been subjected time and again over many, many years, not just to inquiry—that is not the point—but to intelligent, rational investigation, with evidence to see who is and who is not going to suffer if this or that change is made.
I would appeal to my noble friend by saying that if no such amendments as these are passed on this matter and also on unfair dismissal, then maybe a victory will be scored for equality in theory (and maybe more than in theory) in many areas, but there will be those who suffer, and they will be mainly women, although not entirely so.
Therefore the debate leads me to say this to the Government concerning accepting this offer. What is it, after all? It is an offer of power to investigate, and yet it is thrown back in our faces as though we were some bolshevik horde suggesting some dreadful deed for the Secretary of State, who has waited six years to act. It is an offer of a power to investigate and to make an order in the terms of equality. If the Minister will accept the amendment without the delay of one year, we can do the deal across the Table now. Is that what he objects to? We have put a year in the amendment, but that is negotiable. If we are to help people, we do not stand on time. No, the Government will not have the amendment whether it contains a year or a minute. That is why we shall press the amendment.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Alport, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Amherst, E.

Caradon, L.

Attlee, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barnett, L.

Collison, L.

Blease, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

Bottomley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

554

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Denington, B.

Mais, L.

Diamond, L.

Mar, C.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Melchett, L.

Ennals, L.

Meston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

Galpern, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Northfield, L.

Grey, E.

Parry, L.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Hayter, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Serota, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stedman, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kaldor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kissin, L.

Underhill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winstanley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Henley, L.

Allerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Auckland, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bauer, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ingrow, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Long, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cathcart, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monson, L.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

De La Warr, E.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Portland, D.

Glanusk, L.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reigate, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

555

Rodney, L.

Suffield, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sandford, L.

Tryon, L.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Somers, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wise, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Removal of restrictions on working hours and conditions of women]:
6.8 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Protection of existing conditions) below").
The noble Lord said: I have to say to the Committee, as I am sure will be well in the minds of everyone here, anyway, that this is just an introductory amendment because I go on and am concerned with a whole series of amendments which we have put down—in particular, Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 21, 24, 28 and 31. With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to those amendments as I go along.
The object of the exercise here is to create a situation in which employees affected by this Bill at the date of its commencement as an Act will be protected by what is, in effect, a new right of unfair dismissal. What we are trying to do—and the Committee will be very much aware of the fact that we have in mind the Shops Bill which has gone through this House and is now in the other place—is to create a set of rights in respect of workers covered by this Bill which is analogous to the set of rights which the Government themselves proposed should be created in respect of workers affected by the passage of the Shops Bill.
If people who are employed at the date of the commencement of the Act find themselves dismissed because they refuse to work in circumstances in which they were not compelled to work before the Bill became an Act—for example, if they were compelled to work nights, were compelled to work in violation of the rules on shift work and of legislation on women's work, were compelled to work beyond the limits of the standard week, or Sundays or in periods protected by annual holidays; or, in respect of bakery workers, were compelled to work and were dismissed because they refused to work beyond the limits of the present night work rules, and so on—then they get a right of unfair dismissal which, we say, is precisely analagous to the situation as the Government themselves created it, quite rightly and quite fairly, and with our support, in respect of shopworkers covered by the Shops Bill.
We want to do this not just for workers who themselves specifically refuse to work, but also if there is reason to believe that the employer is dismissing them because he believes that they will not work nights or because, if they are dismissed, the employer will be able to engage a new worker who will not be covered by our amendment, and therefore the employer will be
556
free to employ them in ways outside the protections which this legislation is intended to get rid of.
The arguments that we advance in favour of this amendment are the ones that were advanced by the Minister who was piloting the Shops Bill through this House just a short while ago. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who was piloting the Shops Bill, justified the right of unfair dismissal for established workers who were dismissed because they refused to work on Sundays, and he did so on a whole series of grounds. I shall do no more than beg in aid the arguments that he used. Indeed, he deployed those arguments no fewer than four times during the passage of the Shops Bill through this House.
6.15 p.m.
The first time that he deployed the arguments was at col. 223 of the Official Report of 21st January, when he was replying to an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who, the Committee will remember, was not content with establishing a right of unfair dismissal so far as concerned existing workers—I do not think there was any debate or controversy in the Chamber about establishing a right of unfair dismissal so far as existing workers were concerned—but wanted to extend it to future shopworkers. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said:
"The reason why the Bill distinguishes between existing and future shopworkers is clear and straightforward. It will radically alter the position of existing shopworkers, many of whom may have been attracted to shopwork in the first instance because they would not have to work on a Sunday. I can well understand the concern of existing shopworkers, and our proposals recognise their special position. But I do not believe that similar consideration applies to new recruits.".
He went on:
"The Bill offers protection to those shopworkers in employment on the day before commencement but not to those joining the industry after that date"—
which is what we are suggesting. He continued:
"With respect, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Renton that that is entirely logical. It is important to provide protection as soon as possible once the Bill has become law and Sunday trading is legalised; but I feel that it would be wrong to make the protection retrospective.".
We are not suggesting retrospection and we are not suggesting that it should be done on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wanted it done for shopworkers. We are suggesting a precise analogy with the position of shopworkers for women workers working nights and to bakery workers who are outside the protection of the Baking Industry (Hours of work) Act.
Then, again, on Report the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said at col. 153 of the Official Report of 11th February:
"My Lords, the reason for offering safeguards to existing employees, as we propose, is clear, and furthermore it is straightforward. The Bill will radically alter the position of existing shopworkers, many of whom may have been attracted to shop work in the first instance because they would not have to work on a Sunday. I understand the concern of existing shopworkers, and I believe that our proposals recognise their special position".
I suggest to the Government that many women may have been attracted to work because they would not have to work at nights. I also suggest that many baking workers may have been attracted into that work because they would not have to work unless they gave

557
their permission via the various exemption procedures. I suggest therefore that there is an absolute parallel with the speech made by the noble Lord on 11th February last.
Yet again in the debate on 11th February the Government themselves proposed in respect of the Shops Bill a widening of the rights, which we are not ourselves suggesting in our amendment, because we are very modest in what we are asking. They suggested widening the rights to allow a worker to move to a new employer; and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, in defence of this accommodation by the Government, at col. 164 of the Official Report of 11th February:
"My Lords, as I proposed we would during the Committee stage, we have carefully considered all the arguments put forward by your Lordships during that stage that the two new rights should be extended to employees entering the industry after the commencement date".
And, again, he said:
"After a very careful consideration however of the arguments, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to give new entrants these rights. We have, however, been able to make a small concession to extend these rights to existing employees who subsequently change employers"—
and he once again gave the reasons. He said:
"There are strong grounds for giving statutory protection to existing shopworkers"—
and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place because the Minister went on to mention him and said:
"As was pointed out most forcefully by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter during the Committee stage, this Bill will alter the expectation of existing shopworkers as to the possibility of Sunday working. This would be unfair to existing shopworkers. The Government recognise the need to safeguard the existing position of established shop workers and to grant them special protection. It is possible … that some of them may have been attracted into retailing in the first instance because, by and large, they would not have been expected to work on a Sunday".
We are arguing that there is a precise parallel here between workers covered by this Bill, who would not normally be expected to work nights and who might be dismissed, or could be dismissed, because they refused to work nights, and the workers covered by the Government's own proposals in the Shops Bill. We do not see how the Government—perhaps they forgot to put it in the Bill—can justify proposing one set of provisions for shop-workers, but not being prepared to accept our amendment this evening.
Finally, at Third Reading—the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur could not get off this question; he felt very strongly about it—he said at col. 964 of the Official Report of 25th February:
"The Government recognise that the repeal of the restrictions on Sunday trading will alter the position of existing shopworkers"—
and, once again, he said:
"Many of these may have joined the industry in the first place just because they would not have to work on a Sunday. For these reasons we have introduced protection for existing workers."
We are arguing that to all intents and purposes the position is identical and that all the arguments which the Government themselves put into the mouth of the Minister and embodied in the Shops Bill apply, reinforce and support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I think I am right in saying that at the outset of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to a number of other amendments
558
to which he was speaking at the same time. I think he said—and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that, in addition to Amendment No. 10, he was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 21, 24, 28 and 31. In any event that is my understanding of the grouping which we are now addressing.
These amendments seek to give two new rights to those employees who, at the date of the commencement of the Bill, are subject to the restrictions on working hours and other working conditions which are removed by the Bill. First, the new rights would mean that those restrictions would continue to be conditions of employment unless they had agreed otherwise in writing; secondly, those employees would be able to claim unfair dismissal if dismissed because they refused to agree a variation in such conditions or because the employer wished to engage another employee on terms and conditions which did not include the restrictions.
Such an amendment would load the dice unfairly against employers. In the first place, the Government believe that this sort of protection is unnecessary. We believe that the repeal of these outdated and outmoded restrictions will not lead to wholesale or dramatic changes in working hours. A manufacturer will alter hours only if he has the orders to justify it or particular circumstances demand it. He is not likely without good reason to incur the additional costs that longer or unsocial hours usually involve.
But the amendment in itself makes for difficulties and uncertainties for an employer confronted by it. What does he have to do if this amendment is enacted? If he lets things ride, presumably his employees continue to have their conditions dictated by the restrictions and he must continue to shoulder the bureaucratic burden involved in record keeping, posting notices and so on. On the other hand, if he attempts to rid himself of this burden, he must secure the agreement of each of his workers; but they are unlikely to give this until they know precisely what they are letting themselves in for. They will rightly not be interested in hypothetical situations that may arise in the future.
So either way, the employer is stuck with the burden. But as his workforce turns over, new employees will be taken on who presumably accept employment on the terms he offers, whatever they may be. Thus he ends up with a two-tier workforce; some restricted, others not. Can you imagine the administrative costs that this will create; the inflexibility and the sheer complication of such a system? And in turn, of course, there is the negative effect of all of this on job creation.
Furthermore, it is not clear how the rights given by this amendment would sit with the current system of exemptions that employers have. Will employees, who are now working at times that would be prohibited were it not for a special exemption order, have these rights? If so, what possible justification can there be for that?
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, drew some parallels with the Shops Bill which your Lordships have been considering recently, but whereas shops may well open on Sundays, we do not expect sudden

559
changes in factory hours. Existing workers, of course, already have protection against unfair dismissal.
This amendment is unworkable for the reasons I have mentioned, and I hope that the noble Lord will see the error of his ways.
Lord McCarthy: I am genuinely astonished at the Minister's reply. I would argue that virtually everything he said could have been said about the Government's own amendment in the case of the Shops Bill. I do not see how the Government can put forward a totally separate set of arguments in these circumstances. Of course it could be argued that this amendment loads the dice against employers, as the Minister said. Of course it could be argued that this amendment is unnecessary. Of course it could be argued that the provisions of the Acts which the Bill proposes to abolish are themselves outmoded. But all these are arguments which could have been brought against what the Government proposed in the Shops Bill.
Of course it could be argued as the Minister argued, that manufacturing industry will not move directly and immediately to night work. They will not do it unnecessarily; they will not do it in fact unless they can make a profit out of it. Of course they will not. But that could be said about the Shops Bill. Employers in shops will not move to Sunday work unless they can make a profit out of it. The principles are precisely the same.
The Government once again make assertions. They make assertions without evidence. Indeed, they make assertions where the evidence is entirely against them. The Minister says not only that employers will not do it precipitately but he thinks that when they examine it they will not do it at any great rate. The fact is—we shall be arguing this subsequently on other amendments—that some employers are waiting for the abolition of the restrictions upon bakery hours and upon the hours of women workers in order to introduce a considerable increase in night work. The fact is that there has been a considerable increase in night work in the past few years. The fact is that there have been several occasions when the legislation—and only the existence of the legislation—has prevented further additions of night work in ways which we believe are unsocial and bad for the health of the workers concerned. There is every bit as much of an indication—it may not be as evident—that this Bill will have consequences as far reaching in respect of night work for women and in respect of night work for men in the bakery industry as there are in the case of the Shops Bill.
It could be said with the Shops Bill that if the Government accepted what we are saying they would be stuck with the burden of a two-tier labour force. This is precisely the argument that we made without avail to the Government when we supported the amendment to the Shops Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We said, "You have come to this House and you have said to us that you agreed that there ought to be an unfair dismissal right. We accept that. All power to your elbow; you have introduced this right for workers in the Shops Bill. But you cannot have a two-tier labour force, surely. It is an anomaly. It would be administratively difficult to carry out and
560
the workers will feel it is unjust". The Government said to us, "Nonsense. It is quite separate. It is quite different. It is not anomalous. We are trying to look after expectations and acquired rights. We don't have to do it for all workers who come into the industry over the foreseeable future; we merely have to give it to those whose expectations have been changed as a result of our legislation". The Government said that to us. Now, because we take them at their word, because we bring them an amendment which accepts their general approach and accepts their philosophy, they have the nerve to say to us, "You are sticking us with a double burden".
The Minister says to me: "How will we fit in the exemption orders?" This really is the butt-end of an argument. You will not have to fit in the exemption orders. If you have passed this Bill as you brought it into the House with only our amendment in it, there would not be any exemption orders because you would have got rid of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act and you would have got rid of all the restrictions on women's work, and therefore there would not be any exemption orders and there would not be anything to fit in. Therefore, there is no reason and there is no difference. If there is, then the Minister has not suggested it. Certainly there is no reason why we should not press this matter to a Division.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble Lord does so, if that is what he decides to do, I suggest to him that he is not comparing like with like. Everybody understands that in the case of a shop—and the noble Lord has relied almost exclusively upon this argument—if it is decided to open it on a Sunday, then open on a Sunday it will and the staff will be there to serve if required.
In the case of a factory—and it is factories and the like that we are considering in this legislation—the position is entirely different. What we anticipate and what is likely to happen, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, is that a modest upturn in activity will occur that will call for, say, one or two additional shifts a week, which might have to be done at night. That is a difference in kind, I suggest, from the difficulties to which the noble Lord has referred with regard to shops.
That is why we thought it necessary to provide the special provisions to which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred during the passage of the Shops Bill through your Lordships' House. This is a very different proposition that is before your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not entitled to draw the parallels that he has drawn.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord questions whether I can see the difference. I cannot see the difference. This is the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is very fond of calling "It's only a small baby argument". If anybody is smothered, it will only be a small baby, or it will not be more than a few babies; and surely we are not bothered about just a few babies? Of course, if it were a large number of babies and they were smothered in a very nasty way, then we would be in the situation of the Shops Bill.

561
The Government are telling us that the only difference is the rate at which wrongs are done. We are saying it would be wrong on the same argument that the Government have used; that it would be wrong to deny the expectations of workers who are not shopworkers in this area, who took jobs in the expectation that they would not have to work nights. That is the logic of the argument—that if they worked nights, it would be entirely voluntary.
The Minister says that, without any evidence, he believes employers will extend night work only gradually. I say to him that what evidence I have is against him. Anyway, I do not care if only a few employers are concerned. If there are only a few, there will not be many cases to go to the tribunal. I dare say that if the Minister thought it would be a large number, then he would argue that we could not have this amendment because too many cases would go to the tribunal. The fact is that whether the cases are few or many in number, the argument for protection on the ground of worsted expectations is exactly the same.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, I may say that he really is over-exaggerating his case. He puts this argument together with the example of Sunday working and the distributive trades, which are quite different from manufacturing. In effect, he is seeking to place a restriction on people adopting new practices in order to keep up with new methods of manufacturing. This matter does not relate specifically to night working. The noble Lord's Amendment No. 31, which I take to be the key amendment, is generalising very much from the particular. I would have thought that it represents an old-fashioned, walking back into earlier centuries; a sort of Luddite approach is governing the thinking behind this amendment. It is purely hampering for British industry, which must become more effective.
The key to our success in the world depends on being able to make things more economically and more capably than our rivals in the rest of the world. Any legislation of this nature is another method of hampering that process. It is totally unnecessary. The more that my noble friends on the Front Bench can do to free matters so that we can compete better in the world, the better.
I would have thought that the noble Lord has hanged on quite enough about the Shops Bill, which is quite irrelevant in this argument. It deals with something that is internal to this country—the distributive trades—which has nothing to do with manufacturing and competition in the world at large. One must get one's priorities and everything else right. I trust that the noble Lord will not pursue this amendment any further.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord knows that he very rarely convinces me, and he has not convinced me today. I want to press this amendment to a Division.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar, C.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Melchett, L.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Mully, L.

Denington, B.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russel of Liverpool, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Heycock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Faithfull, B.

Allerton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bauer, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Birdwood, L.

Glanusk, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Coleraine, L.

Inglewood, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ingrow, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

563

Marley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

St. Davids, V.

Merrivale, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mersey, V.

Sharples, B.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Somers, L.

Munster, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Portland, D.

Tryon, L.

Reay, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Reigate, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renwick, L.

Wise, L.

Rochdale, V.

Young, B.

Rodney, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("cease") and insert ("continue").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the names of myself and my noble friends. With such consultation as I have been able to have with them in a somewhat new situation, it seems to us that we should attempt to adapt the moving of our amendments in a manner which is useful to our discussions. Having in mind Amendment No. 9, which has now been made part of the Bill, and that our discussion must, at any rate tonight, embark on its way on that basis, it seemed to us that some of these amendments could profitably be moved very shortly and briefly, for these reasons.
First, we now need even more than ever the information about the Government's view on the specifics on the different parts of Clause 3. I leave aside Clause 4 until we come to it. That is to say, we need the reason for the Government's belief that they should repeal immediately particular provisions on particular topics.
Secondly, we need information in a more general way and it is appropriate therefore that I should here say something which would arise under another heading. However, under this general heading it becomes, in the light of the new clause of the Bill, very important that everyone should have the most detailed information possible about the situation under these legislative provisions and, in particular, the Factories Act and the exemption orders in relation to night work, double-day shifts, other types of shift work, and so on.
I say that for a particular reason that relates to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Secretary of State. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Young, challenged me when I suggested that the figures were no longer published relating to those particular types of exemption order. We agreed that the totals were still being published and he said that in the November and February Employment Gazette we would find the figures. That was a misunderstanding and the noble Lord, Lord Young, was kind enough to write to me on 5th March—I wish to place on record my gratitude to the noble Lord—to say that having re-read our
564
speeches he now saw that I was referring to the detailed analyses of the orders; that is, the specific number of exemption orders that relate to the different types of night work, shift work, and so on. He said that the Government had ceased to publish those because, as his Written Answer to me in October 1985 said and on which I had relied, this was a detailed analysis no longer readily available because the production of such information would involve a disproportionate cost.
Our misunderstanding is at an end but the information is still not forthcoming. This information was published for many decades until two or three years ago when the Government stopped publishing it. I place on record now the fact that since this Committee has said that examples must be looked at case by case in relation to this legislation, we need that information. We must have that information. The public are entitled to it, and the idea that the cost is disproportionate is a misjudgment which the Government must immediately remedy.
In regard to this particular amendment, to which those remarks are generally relevant, I would say merely this. Had we not convinced the Government by weight of numbers of the more desirable new clause we would have challenged the repeal of this particular provision—the repeal of the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936—which, broadly speaking, deals with night shift work by women in industrial establishments. Indeed, industrial establishments are rather wider than the provisions on factories.
What the Government could help us with is what they see as the major advantage apart from the generality of principle; that is, agreeing that sex discrimination must eventually go, and resting on our new clause that there are now many ways to make it go, it would nevertheless be helpful to have on record the Government's specific points in relation to the repeal of night work limitations on women workers. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said, in relation to this matter, that this repeal would see us,
"reap the benefits by way of generation of jobs."—[Official Report, 27/2/86; col. 1180.]
We do not suggest that this is a point for any more generalities. If the Government are willing, no doubt they will now discuss, in the light of the new clause, questions relating to welfare, transportation, family disruption and perhaps parental leave. We hope that the Government will think again about those matters and about the general issue. If they will not, let us have on record what their case would have been on specific parts of the benefit that would accrue from repeal of the night work limitations.
We approach our amendments briefly in that way. If the Government can tell us by way of headings where their case lies on the specifics of the matter, that will be helpful when we come to look, as we no doubt shall, at the way forward from today's debate. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As has been said before, our purpose in Clause 3 of this Bill has been to remove outdated restrictions on the hours of work of women employed on manual work in factories and industrial undertakings. What this amendment proposes is that we should continue with some of these restrictions but that the employment of women at night should be

565
prohibited unless the employer applies to the Health and Safety Executive for a special exemption order. In the following amendments noble Lords seem willing to accept the need for some of the restrictions to be removed. But if we continue with this blanket prohibition on night working which prevents women from being employed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. and for a period of 11 consecutive hours, then women will continue to be very limited as to the hours they can work.
The legislation that we propose to repeal is archaic and inappropriate in today's circumstances. It covers only those women working in industry and none of the considerably larger numbers in service industries such as nurses, policewomen, women in catering in the entertainment industries and in office occupations such as computing. What possible justification can there be for continuing to treat women in manufacturing industry differently? The Government believe that there is no reason why they should not be given the same opportunities as their male colleagues to work at night.
That is the essence of the objection that I have to the amendment now before us. But in the light of recent events, let me add a comment about what I understand are TUC fears that if more women work at night they will run an increased risk of physical attack on the journey to or from their job. That is a matter very much in our minds just now, following some terrible recent happenings. The Government understand the natural anxiety felt about that, but it must be kept in perspective.
Some 200,000 women already work at normally prohibited times in factories where special exemption orders are in force. Almost 80,000 of them are working at some time during the night; that is, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. Then there are women working in jobs where there is no legislative restriction, and I referred to those just now; for example, hospitals, the police force, hotels, catering and the entertainment industry. In all those cases women are already making their own transport arrangements or they come to some arrangement with their employer. There is no reason to think that that would change in the proposed repeals.
I would also ask your Lordships to consider whether the way to protect women from such risks is to limit their freedom by imposing curfews. Your Lordships will, I am sure, accept that there are better ways of providing for the safety of women in public places. That is the essence of the difficulty that I have with the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he will not press it.
Baroness Seear: I hope that the noble Lord understands that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I believe, and certainly we on these Benches do not wish to retain indefinitely that protection of women. We have been against the continued discrimination in favour of women, which in fact is a handicap. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and I have said so. We are not asking to go on as we have before. What we ask, and what the success that we have had with the amendments surely underlines, is that we look at what new protection should be given on particular points such as those
566
raised by the noble Baroness and, as I think the Minister should admit, raised in the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, on which he has relied considerably in order to defend his point of view while ignoring certain other points of great importance in the report.
There is also the other very important point that we want to look at what protection is appropriate for both sexes. We do not accept, certainly not without further examination, that the complete abolition of all protection for everybody is an appropriate answer to the problems that we face on both sides. On neither of the Opposition Benches do we want a continuation of the status quo. We consider that it is discriminatory and outdated. The alternative, however, is not total abolition but that there should be incorporated in legislation modified protection; protection, where appropriate, extended to both sexes, so that the discriminatory element is removed; and appropriate protection, suitable to the latter part of the 20th century.
Is the noble Lord prepared to have a discussion? Is he prepared to accept the fact that the two amendments being passed is a strong expression of opinion in your Lordships' Committee and that it requires before the next stage of the Bill consideration of the matter, perhaps jointly?
Lord Mottistone: It seems to me that this amendment and many of the others which relate to Clause 3 and which are all on the same lines might not be thought necessary, if I interpret what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says correctly, provided there is protection in a broader sense which is not industrially harmful. Though noble Lords laughed when I spoke last, I am sure that everybody will agree that the industrial success of this country must underline everything to do with industrial work. We must not forget that at any stage.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is saying that the Opposition do not want special distinctions for women, such as those that are being swept away in Clause 3, I should have thought that most of the amendments to the clause, if not all of them, do not stand up very well. Noble Lords opposite might feel that at any rate they have covered one of the matters that they wish to cover in winning Amendment No. 31 by remote control through Amendment No. 10.
Rather than spending a lot of time talking about this, I believe that the proper procedure now would be for the remaining amendments to the clause to be withdrawn or not moved, and perhaps there will be an opening for noble Lords opposite to think of another way to bring forward a more general amendment which I hope will be defeated if nobody else likes it. As matters stand, I think that we are wasting the time of the Committee if we continue to argue about the remaining amendments to Clause 3, including this one.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, feels that. I hope that we can prove him wrong. Although the Minister's earlier remarks were disappointing, I found (and I suspect from what she said that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did so, too) that in the second part there was a

567
better response to the amendments. He began to discuss different industries and he began to give us a bit of information that we do not have. The figure of 80,000 night-shift workers covered by exemption orders is later than anything published in the Employment Gazette or elsewhere. It would be good to have a few more figures. He said that he understood the TUC's position about problems with transport. We are glad to hear that.
I shall not press the amendment. However, a few of these amendments should be moved. I take the point of the noble Baroness, which we all want to consider seriously. The two amendments that have been passed are important additions to the Bill and even to its character, and so there ought to be discussions on the proper way ahead. It would be silly to think that we should merely operate in the usual, slightly strange way and not apply our minds intelligently to discuss the way ahead in the light of those amendments.
7 p.m.
It would be helpful, since we have the Committee here to discuss these matters, to hear the Government's view on particular points. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who believes that the succcess of British industry stands upon doing what the Bill wanted to do in its original form. We do not take that view. We want to see an end to sex discrimination—I insist again upon that—in a way that does not lead to some workers being exploited and their conditions down graded, which may happen under some employers—employers much less responsible than the noble Lord—if some steps are not taken.
We also take the point that there are some areas of industry and industrial conditions in which legislation has a role to play. Who is the dogmatist now? In industrial relations, everything has a role to play. Legislation has always had a role to play in our voluntary and collective bargaining system. It has provided a floor for the weaker workers. In the area of night shift working, it has provided an important floor for some weaker workers, most of them women but not all, as the baking industry shows.
I welcome the Minister's remarks. I hope that he will have more for us on subsequent amendments as we come to them. We shall try to be specific about the points in the amendments. Of course, we put them down against the expectation—no, perhaps not the expectation but at any rate the possibility—that we would lose our earlier amendments. Now that they are passed there is, however, still a point in moving some of them. I thank the Minister at any rate for the second part of his remarks. I believe that when we examine them in Hansard we shall find them very helpful indeed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 326, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Protection of existing conditions) below").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 10 as part of a package, and the Committee will remember that Amendment
568
No. 10 was passed. I therefore move formally Amendment No. 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 41, after ("(a)") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to mines and quarries. With the leave of the Committee, I shall also refer to the content of Amendment No. 14, but I shall not move it as a separate amendment. This is a very short point. It would have given the Government, as an amendment to the original Bill, most of what they wanted in regard to deregulation in terms of work by women at mines and quarries. That is, of course, work above ground.
The Government have not put forward an amendment, to the annoyance, I suspect, of some women's groups, allowing women to work below ground. I express no view upon that. But this amendment would have given the Government much of what they wanted in regard to Section 125 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 dealing with total hours worked—not exceeding nine in any day, 48 in each week and so on. It would, however, have kept the spell provisions. This has not, I hasten to add for the benefit of those members of the Committee who are not familiar with this section, anything to do with magic or witchcraft. It is the provision whereby a limit is put upon work by women workers at mines and quarries of four and a half hours at a spell, or five hours if there is a 10-minute interval allowed within it.
I want here to probe the Government's view and to ask what is wrong with some kind of legislation in relation to spells of work. If we were successful in having this amendment approved in relation to women workers, might we not also consider other workers? Of course, young workers are covered by this section. Nevertheless, I can perhaps ask the Government whether, if the spell provision, as well as the total number of hours limitation, were suddenly removed en bloc, would there not exist a disadvantageous position for the young worker?
With two workers side by side, one a woman adult and the other a young worker, would not a large number of restrictions be removed from the employing body whereby the young worker would become—I am thinking here in straight economic terms, as we are told that we must—an uneconomic proposition compared to the woman worker, perhaps the part-time woman worker, or two part-time women workers? Will that not have a deleterious effect on employment conditions and perhaps on the employment of the young worker concerned? That is perhaps more than a theoretical proposition. I probe the Government's knowledge and views on that type of situation.
Lord Trefgarne: The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 contains a number of provisions which place restrictions on the hours and times that women may work above ground. Women are not of course permitted to be employed below ground. Section 125 of the Act restricts the hours that may be worked to

569
nine in any day and 48 in any week. It also limits periods of continuous employment to no more than four and a half hours without an interval of at least 30 minutes for a meal or a rest. The Government propose in this Bill to remove these restrictions, and I am pleased to see from the amendment that the noble Lord has accepted that it is no longer necessary to retain by statute the restrictions on the hours that women may work in any day or in any week. This will enable women to participte in overtime working and perhaps a more flexible pattern of working if that is what they and their employer choose.
Why, then, does the noble Lord consider that an Act of Parliament is required to regulate meal-break intervals for women employed above ground in a mine or quarry? Employers in other sectors of the economy seem quite capable of making such arrangements without this kind of statutory intervention. Surely provisions as to intervals for meal-breaks and rest are a matter to be arranged by negotiation either individually or collectively. I do not believe, therefore, that this type of restriction is appropriate and I believe that it should be repealed. It follows from this that I cannot agree to the amendment that the noble Lord proposes.
The noble Lord made some remarks about the relationship of these measures to the employment of young people. I should say, of course, that these provisions have no direct relationship to them. Perhaps, however, I can study what the noble Lord said in that context and write to him if there is anything that I should add.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the Minister for his reply. It began, again, rather disappointingly but pepped up a little as it went along. I am particularly grateful for his statement that he will look at the arguments or at any rate the problem of young people. I must repeat that I was not dealing with the question of repealing provisions about young people. I was asking about the relationship of the conditions of young workers and women workers and, indeed, men workers, if particular provisions of the legislation are repealed. I am glad that we have got the Minister on to that ground. We look forward to his consideration of the matter following this discussion.
Of course it will not do (will it?) to say that this is not needed in most other types of employment, or that the conditions of employment are to be agreed by collective- bargaining. I welcome that proposition generally, but it is not enough. There are other areas of employment, as we see from this very Bill, where spell hours limitation is present. I refer to some of the factories provisions. Secondly, the mere fact that it does not exist elsewhere does not mean that it may not be appropriate to a mine or quarry. I was disturbed that the Minister seemed to have nothing in his statement that related to conditions at mines and quarries. These are matters that we shall wish to take up with him. Nevertheless, we are grateful for his statement. The amendments are fulfilling a most important function in this respect, as the record will show. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Protection of existing conditions) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10 my noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke to this amendment as part of the proposal, and Amendment No. 10 was passed by the Committee. I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 5, after (" (a)") insert ("paragraphs (a) and (b) of").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 16 relates to the proposal in the Bill to repeal what is perhaps the most important section of all in the Factories Act 1961 in regard to limitations upon the conditions of work for women and young persons in factories. Of course, as many Members of the Committee will be aware, when we say "factory" we are dealing with the very extended meaning of the word within the Act and dealing with a very large number of different industries.
This amendment will do something rather similar to Amendment No. 13, to which I spoke earlier; that is to say, it will give the Government, or would have given the Government, repeal of the first part of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 86. Section 86 is a strange section because it does not have subsections but only paragraphs, which is an old tradition that has now largely been given up. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would give the Government repeal of the limitation on the total number of hours worked by women in factories, which is normally limited to nine in any day, and 48 in a week, with the period of employment not to exceed 11 hours in any day, having starting and finishing times which are normally 7 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock in the evening under this particular section.
I say immediately that this section is one of the oldest central sections in the legislation. It is the section which has its origin in the 10-hour legislation which was evaded by employers through the relay system about which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will know as a modern employer and which was so graphically described in the factory inspectors' reports and in Karl Marx's Das Kapital. That system of a limit has been fought, as the noble Lord and I both know, by many employers and there are many employers even today who are very antagonistic to it.
This amendment would give the Government repeal of the section and give some women who want to work such hours—and indeed there are some; perhaps many in certain areas—the opportunity to do so. It would also give to some employers an opportunity to push women who did not wish to extend their hours of employment into long spells of hours of work. With great respect to them, I sometimes think that the Government's statements do not take into account the fact that we have a labour market where any woman working in a factory can easily be made to feel that her job is unsafe if she opposes what the management want to do, unless she is lucky enough to have a strong

571
trade union position behind her. A legal limitation can sometimes be helpful in negotiations, and it will also deter many decent employers, who are the vast majority, from transgressing it.
If we take away the limits on hours of work in the week and in the day and take away starting and finishing times, what is left in the section which would be retained by this mendment? It would be retained in an interim way of course because one knows that the ultimate objective is to deal a death blow to all discriminatory provisions. But this was part of our alternative, gradual, Fabian approach, to say (and I do not have Amendment No. 9 in mind here), "You can have half of your repeal, but what about the rest? Do you really want it straight away?"
Paragraph (c) says that after a spell of four and a half hours there must be an interval for a rest or a meal. The short periods of the rest and meal provisions have been rather important. It has also been important, as provided by paragraph (e), that no woman or young person shall be employed during any such interval allowed for meals or rest.
There is a lot more to be said about the matter of long spells of work and the right to have reasonable times of work with meal or rest intervals. The latest figures which I have are for 1982 and they show that some 7,800 out of 180,000 women workers were covered by exemption orders dealing with longer spells than are permitted by such provisions. That is not very many. That encouraged me to think that the Government might not necessarily want to abolish immediately the provisions relating to spells of work and meals and the prohibition upon mealtime employment.
The mealtime employment point is a matter for which many trade unions and workers have had to fight for many decades. Now it is taken for granted, just as it is taken for granted in the Committee that when we go in to dinner we do not have to work—though it is difficult to believe when you hear some of the conversations over dinner. Nevertheless, it is not natural for the worker to believe that he will be allowed to have a meal rest in some places even today without having to do some work. Generally, in Britain we regard that as natural.
This legislation is part of the tradition which we have built up and for which we have had to fight, and the Government must have some views on meal periods, rest periods and spells of work apart from the actual hours of work. Do they really need to repeal that in order to generate new jobs? If so, why? Why is that such a burden? Is it not something that everyone takes for granted? If the Government say that there is not much point in the legislation as it is taken so much for granted, then we should extend it to men and women. We have got an amendment through on that now, so we can easily extend it to men and women. Perhaps that is what we had better do. Perhaps the Minister would like to consider that point either when he replies, or later. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: Once again I am pleased to see that the noble Lord has come part of the way with us and
572
accepts that the removal of some of the restrictions on the hours that women may work in factories is justified. I think he agrees that it is no longer necessary to place restrictions on the maximum number of hours that women may work or to stipulate their earliest starting and finishing times. I therefore fail to see why he considers that the law should intervene in the other aspects of work covered by Section 86 of the Factories Act 1961.
What is the principle at stake here? Why should it be unacceptable to remove the other restrictions dealing with rest breaks and yet leave women and their employers free to negotiate working hours, including the times for starting and finishing work? Why cannot women be left to sort out meal and rest breaks for themselves in the same way? Moreover, why should the law continue to require that all women should take their breaks at one and the same time? Surely employers and employees should be granted flexibility in this matter.
This amendment leaves in place restrictions which are not only discriminatory but also entirely unnecessary nowadays, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it. Before I sit down, perhaps I may ask why it is that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, thinks that women need protection on meal breaks which somehow men have managed without for a very long time.
Baroness Seear: When the Minister says that everything can be left to negotiation, I hope that he will take on board that, though a great many matters can be left to negotiation, this is only an appropriate way of dealing with a situation when it is negotiation between equally weighted parties. The whole crux of the doctrine of collective bargaining in this country is that it has to be between equally weighted parties, between a strong trade union and an employer—indeed sometimes the scales are weighted in favour of the trade union, and then one does not necessarily achieve very good agreements either. But if it is between a very weak and a very strong party, negotiations are a farce.
When the noble Lord talks about the individual woman negotiating with an employer, it is not a negotiation between equally weighted parties, which is the whole tradition on which voluntary collective bargaining in this country has been built up. The noble Lord does not seem to understand that he is undermining the situation—or else he does not realise what collective bargaining is all about and what it depends on—when he says that the woman can bargain with the employer. She is in no position so to do.
I am not clear in my own mind—and I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is at this stage—precisely what type of protection is required. As I said to the noble Lord a few moments ago, surely we are moving into a position in which we want to have discussions about what should be retained, what should be provided for both men and women, what in some cases should be added and what can be abandoned. What we are objecting to is the wholesale abandonment of what we have had in the past, with no discussions about the way in which it can be equalised between men and women and the very simple-minded

573
reliance on collective bargaining in a situation in which many people are at a great disadvantage when it comes to bargaining in times of unemployment such as we have today.
Lord Mottistone: I still do not quite understand what the noble Baroness is trying to say. She is saying that women and men should be more equal and that we should get rid of things which make them different. She also says that my noble friend is sweeping away wholesale sections of the Factories Act. It seems to me that there has been a very modest encroachment of what is in the Factories Act in certain selected areas and it is not a wholesale sweeping away. Indeed, a great deal of thought has obviously gone into deciding just exactly what is reasonable to repeal and what is not reasonable to repeal in order to bring a greater equality between men and women, and in order to allow women, if they wish, to do the type of work which men have been doing, where that is reasonable.
Obviously, to have women going down the mines would be most unwise, and nobody is suggesting it. However, it seems to me reasonable that they should have the same opportunities as men, both to work when men do and to earn as much money as men do. I do not see why the noble Baroness in particular is quarrelling with what is in the Bill at the moment, and I do not see why the Bill should not remain more or less as it stands. No doubt there is a great deal more that could go into the Bill which would make it even more equal for women. However, my noble friends have thought it out very carefully and have put in what is reasonable at this stage of the game.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand. Perhaps he was not present when I explained the matter in rather more detail, or, if he was here, perhaps I did not make myself clear to him. However, if he reads Hansard he will see my arguments.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In a sense the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is discussing our amendments without the context of the new clauses which are now in the Bill. We are entitled to discuss them tonight at any rate against the background of those new clauses. I tried to explain that I was going to move the amendments against that background for the specific purpose of seeing where the Government stood on particular matters. Therefore, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I shall not engage in argument about whether or not this would have been a modest repeal or an immodest repeal of the Factories Act provisions. Nor, indeed, do I intend to meet his argument that everyone should be allowed to work in exactly whatever conditions they like without any further conditions, which was the kind of argument which justified the use of chimney-sweep boys. Historically, there has been a good reason for protecting women workers in certain areas.
We now face in a modern society the perfectly sensible proposition that we hope and want the future to contain equality between the sexes. We have to examine other limitations upon industrial conditions. It does not follow from that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has made clear more than once, that we merely sweep away the provisions of protective
574
legislation without further ado. The Committee has decided that that is so. The Committee has said to the Government tonight, "You are wrong; you must consider the matter by inquiring deeply into each case to see whether in each case there are provisions that should protect both men and women, and then you must decide just when and how you repeal". Perhaps "how" and "when" are the two most important points.
I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that she hoped that we were moving towards discussions to sort all this out. The Bill is now a new Bill and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will unhappily, in the light of this amendment, have a working meal during the short break to see whether some message can reach us about if not the Government's specific intentions, at any rate their general view on the way we might go forward. What the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, seemed to us on these Benches to make a great deal of sense. The Bill has now so radically changed that some discussion should take place of a rather unusual kind about the way in which we can approach a sensible legislative conclusion, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility bearing in mind the different views which have been discussed.
As to the specific points which the Minister made, in my view they were disappointing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the idea that women can be left to sort out their rest breaks, meal and working times is quite theoretical. We need to know the Government's opinion about such matters in real industrial conditions—industry by industry, place by place. That is what the Government must do. I shall look at Hansard and try to change my view, but I suspect that when I read it I shall find the Minister's response so far to this amendment on that count not very helpful. However, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: I have the feeling that your Lordships may like some refreshment. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Surrogacy Arrangements (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do not intend to make a long speech as the Bill represents the fulfilment of a promise made to a number of noble Lords on the occasion of their responding to the Government's plea not to press their amendments to a Division at the Committee stage of the Government's own Surrogacy Arrangements Bill in the last Session of Parliament, for fear of losing the Bill altogether if it had to be returned to the other place amended,
In conference with those who wished to see its provisions strengthened, I undertook to resurrect their amendments in a Private Member's Bill which I

575
promised to introduce in the following—that is, this—Session of Parliament. The Bill now before your Lordships represents that promise kept. In the end, all amendments bar one stood in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, and it is his amendments that I have resurrected in this Bill, with one exception. The exception is an amendment that stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, dealing with the level of punishment. This he can reintroduce in Committee as an amending inclusion to Schedule 1 to the Bill, if he is minded to do so.
I shall now briefly take your Lordships through the structure of the Bill. Clause 1 embodies Lord Denning's first amendment. It states quite simply that surrogacy arrangements are unenforceable at law, placing the current opinion of lawyers beyond a peradventure. They believe that that is the law now, but it has never been tested in the courts. It was supported by Lord Craigmyle, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Lauderdale. It was supported in principle by Lord Swinfen and Lord Prys-Davies who, however, expressed caution as to the effects of returning the Bill amended to the other place. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 also bears on this matter.
Clause 2 embodies the second amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning in the previous Bill, and confirms the opinion of lawyers that the mother of a child is, in law, she who bears it and not some third party who may have donated an egg for incubation. It was supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, Baroness Phillips, and Lord Craigmyle. Clause 3 recites the relationship between this and the Government Act of last year, now on the statute book. Clause 4 deals with the Short Title, certain definitions and the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
My noble and learned friend's third and fourth amendments were intended to implement the Warnock Committee's Report on page 47, which I shall quote:
"We further recommend that the legislation be sufficiently wide to render criminally liable the actions of professionals and others who knowingly assist in the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy".
That was the recommendation of the Warnock Committee.
His amendment was supported by the Bishop of Ripon; but it was opposed by Lady Warnock, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Prys-Davies. It is dealt with in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1. My noble and learned friend's Amendments Nos. 5 to 12 were again concerned with implementing the Warnock Committee's report with respect to both profit and non-profit-making organisations; but in the result they were not moved. They are resurrected in paragraphs 2(2) to 2(6) of Schedule 1.
Schedule 2 is a so-called Keeling schedule. The schedule is named after Sir William Keeling, MP, who first recommended this form for amending legislation. His proposal was endorsed by the committee on the preparation of legislation, which was appropriately named the Renton Committee after the subsequently ennobled Lord who chaired it and reported in May, 1975.
576
As all the amendments to which I have referred were confined to Sections 1 and 2 of the Government Act, Schedule 2 in Keeling form shows how the first two sections of that Act will appear as amended by Schedule 1. The underlined passages will be deleted and those in bold print inserted. The typographical implementation of this will be attended to by the Public Bill Office when the Bill is ready for Royal Assent.
My Lords, there is nothing in this Bill that was not fully debated in the last Session of Parliament. There is no pressing need to debate it all over again at Second Reading. What we want is a lively Committee stage in which the separate amendments can be voted on—a valuable gift to the Government, who can test what the opinion of the House really is without committing ourselves to any danger to the present Bill now on the statute book.
We have only an hour in hand and there are nine speakers on the list. I have spoken briefly myself—only six minutes—and if others will do the same, we need not frustrate the will of the House to resume with the rest of its business for the evening promptly at the end of the hour that we have been given. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
7.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for his clear exposition of the Bill. I am a layman in matters medical and legal but it is clear, as the Warnock Committee said, that there are moral dimensions to the whole matter of surrogacy. At the same time it is difficult to discover just how those moral dimensions should be expressed. We live in a society where there are a variety of values, by no means all of them shared, and even within the Church there are sometimes differing viewpoints on a particular moral problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in her introduction to the report talked about the way in which we have to come to our morality by means of a sense of what is right or wrong. It is obvious, to me at any rate, that in considering this matter of surrogacy, and in particular in considering the clauses of the Bill before us, there is a fairly clear consensus.
I would not want to claim that that consensus extends to the total banning of surrogacy. Indeed, even within the Church there are those who believe that it may be right and proper that a woman should offer in loving service the use of her womb to someone who is close to her. The Warnock Committee did not believe that the practice of surrogacy should itself be outlawed, and I hope that whatever is put into law will leave a space for that kind of loving service that I have mentioned.
We are therefore considering not so much the morality of surrogacy but what it is right at the moment to enshrine in law. These two clauses which, as the noble Earl said, were both moved as amendments in the previous Bill come with wide support—the support of the Warnock Committee

577
itself, and the support of the working party of the General Synod of the Church of England. Warnock did not believe that surrogacy should be outlawed, although in the introduction it seems to be made clear that the members of the committee of inquiry believed surrogacy to be wrong. But the committee recommended that any arrangement should be illegal.
The present Bill surely has a more correct wording when it says that a surrogacy arrangement should be not illegal but rather void and unenforceable. It is also surely right in declaring that it is the bearing mother who is the legal mother. What has happened in the growth of medical technique is that it is now possible to separate our various aspects of parenthood. We can separate the genetic parent from the bearing mother, and the bearing mother from the social parents.
Within the Church, on the whole, the argument has been that the strong bonding lies between the bearing mother and the social mother—that is to say, the mother who bears should surely be the one regarded in law as mother. The more one lays weight on arguments which place relative strength on the bond between a bearing mother and a social mother and weaken the bond between the genetic and social mother, the more one is undermining the whole process of surrogacy.
There are, I believe, arguments which support the relative strength of the link between the bearing and social parent. There is the bonding to which I have already referred, and there is also the intimation that a women in offering her womb is somehow degrading her own body by offering the use of a uterus for the purpose of child bearing to a mother who will later become the social parent. There is the possible emotional damage, not to speak of possible physiological damage, to the bearing mother. There is damage which may be done to the child in the womb because the mother will not be bearing it as a child who is in due course to be her own. It may in the course of time be degrading to the dignity of the child to have known that in some way it was the result of some kind of contract.
With those arguments and the general kind of intimation that we have from a moral consensus, it is surely right that the mother who has already a parental relationship in bearing the child should also be the one who bears the legal status of motherhood. It is surely also right that if there is to be any handing over of a child it should be done by adoption.
There are two matters which were mentioned during the debate on the Surrogacy Arrangements Act which are not mentioned in this Bill. They are the outlawing of non-profit-making organisations, and the position of those professionals who may be involved in any surrogacy arrangements. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham feels strongly on these matters. He is sorry that he is not able to be present in your Lordships' House this evening, but he hopes to be present at Committee stage and to speak to those two particular concerns.
Having mentioned those matters, I want to affirm my own support for this Bill, and to say that I believe that the clauses, as they stand, put into effect not only what we believe the law already to be but what we should like it to be.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, in considering the Bill I suggest that it is necessary, first, to analyse what the 1985 Act already achieves and then to see what more this Bill seeks to do, and why. The 1985 Act, as it now is, cut out the commercial middleman, and quite rightly so. The reasons for thoroughly opposing any commercial third party element were well ventilated in your Lordships' debates both on the report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and on the 1985 Bill, as it then was. The risk of exploitation by and of the parties involved are all too obvious. The 1985 Act as it stands is widely drawn. It catches arrangements with a promise or understanding of "any payment".
Thus it catches, or ought to catch, the nominal payment or the payment dressed up as expenses or otherwise disguised. It catches the bogus charitable donation. It catches the deferred payment made after some cosmetic interval. It catches the laundered payment made to a trustee on behalf of the parties involved. It even covers arrangements where payment is expected but does not actually arrive. The 1985 Act also deters overseas operators, because under Section 2 it catches any preparatory work carried out in the United Kingdom.
What, then, does the Bill do? It turns its attentions from the middlemen to catch the surrogate mother herself and the commissioning parent. It is one thing to say that arrangements are unenforceable and illegal in civil law. I entirely accept that it is desirable to codify the civil law in this respect, to confirm the existing case law and to supplement Section 85 of the Children Act 1975; but is another thing to say that those directly involved should be exposed to criminal prosecution. Is it really necessary to criminalise and penalise the infertile and the desperate? Discourage them, yes; but punish them, no.
I look at the Warnock Report at paragraph 8.19:
"We do not envisage that this legislation would render private persons entering into surrogacy arrangements liable to criminal prosecution, as we are anxious to avoid children being born to mothers subject to the taint of criminality. We nonetheless recognise that there will continue to be privately arranged surrogacy agreements".
The very width of the range of payments in the 1985 Act, which is so useful to catch the profiteering middlemen, will also catch the essentially noncommercial private arrangements. For example, if the only money to pass is a contribution made by the commissioning parents towards the petrol expenses of the surrogate mother to ensure that she goes to the doctor or to the hospital, then there is a risk of a criminal prosecution under this Bill, subject only to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The criminal sanctions expose the parties not only to punishment but also to blackmail as between themselves and by third parties, such as the malicious neighbour who guesses what is going on. If the Bill goes any further I hope that there might be an attempt to distinguish payments which are genuinely compensatory rather than a reward. But the difficulty in formulating and proving such a distinction may be a reason for leaving the law as it is.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, the Bill will not exclude the truly unselfish surrogacy by a friend or

579
relation, particularly the fertile sister providing a child for the infertile. The Bill cannot prevent and may well encourage these activities to be driven underground, with all the squalor and deceit that that will involve, or driven abroad. Indeed, any effective prosecution may be difficult. It may become more difficult for the local authorities and for the courts concerned who have to pick up the pieces afterwards. They are concerned not with the criminality but with the welfare of the child. We should not under-estimate the lengths to which people are prepared to go.
Finally, the Bill should not close the door which the dissenting members of the Warnock Committee suggested should be left slightly ajar. That is a view shared by many responsible experts in the field. In this respect I look at the proposed new Section 2(5). It is not just aimed at the unpaid front man for the overseas operators: it is aimed at any group which may assist a surrogacy arrangement as part of its function.
I suggest that the door should be left open in exceptional cases for professional help and legal recognition for properly prepared and monitored and controlled arrangements by strictly licensed and qualified experts. These would have to be arrangements in which the rights and the duties of all involved are clearly defined and understood from the outset, and throughout. They would have to be arrangements in which the welfare of the resultant child would be the first consideration throughout. This would be a wanted child to enhance a family. I suggest that as the minority suggested these arrangements could be part of the range of options open to the experts. Indeed, they would provide some safety valve for the desperate parties involved from the unscrupulous operators who are already criminalised under the 1985 Act.
I hope that the Government will indicate today how they intend to pursue their wider response to the Warnock Report. I hope the Government will indicate whether they intend to implement a wider review of the law of legitimacy, which keenly touches upon this area of concern. This is an area for careful thought, not for dogmatic rhetoric. It is an area for tolerance, not emotion or criminality. The Bill may create as many problems as it solves. I ask your Lordships to consider it very carefully before it goes further.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Bill and give it my full support. I noticed that only last Saturday there was an announcement that Dr. Steptoe's fertility clinic is going into non-commercial surrogacy arrangements using sisters of barren potential mothers. I wonder whether this might not be carried further. I can see the possibility of the barren women's mother acting as a surrogate mother for her unfortunate daughter. If a woman has become barren later in life, possibly her own daughter could become a surrogate mother for her as a result of a second marriage. We could end up with very complicated relationships. What is the position if a disabled child were born? The problems grow considerably.
The main point in this debate is to move us on to the Committee stage, where we can discuss the Bill in detail. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, mentioned the amendment that I moved and then withdrew at the
580
Committee stage of the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill, concerning fines and penalties. I noticed in the Sunday Times the day before yesterday the report of a woman who had been recruited by an agency, not paid for being a surrogate mother but paid for keeping a diary of her pregnancy. There are many ways round the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, if I understood him correctly, said that the law provided a catch-all situation. People could be caught by the law. That is not always easy to prove. I think, therefore, that all arrangements should be void.
I accept with pleasure the noble Lord's offer for me to include in his Bill, or to attempt to include in his Bill, at Committee stage, the sort of amendments that I moved last year; because at the moment I do not think the Act that is now in force has the necessary teeth. The level of fine, Scale 5, is only £2,000. There have been reports of women being paid as much as £20,000. This could quite easily go in as part of their costs, and they would still come out with a profit of well over £15,000, even taking into account all the costs of a nine-month pregnancy. The commercial agencies themselves will be making, I am certain, far bigger profits than £5,000. They will put up their charges just to cover it as an "in case". I welcome this Bill and wish it Godspeed.
7.51 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, with this Bill we move from the purely practical financial measures dealt with in the earlier Act into a realm which may be described almost as abstract morality, which is an enormously difficult field into which either House of Parliament can imprint its foot. It is a morass and I think that the whole thing is a good deal less simple than perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would like to think that it is. I wish to ask one particular question. But before I do that, as a little more background, may I mention that we are already in a state of confusion even if it is only linguistic. I do not know where the idea of surrogate motherhood came from. I think it came from America. A surrogate is a substitute and, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, himself and, I think, by the right reverend Prelate who sits below me—and I say this in a strictly factual manner of speaking—the mother of a child is the woman who bore him. I do not subscribe to the practice of referring to a baby as "it", incidentally.
So that we have the mother who, almost before the Bill (any Bill), has begun its life, has become the surrogate mother; whereas, in fact, the substitute mother, the one to whom the baby will be handed over, should be the surrogate mother. She is referred to by the right reverend Prelate as the "social mother", sometimes as the "commissioning mother" and sometimes as—I know not what; there are several things. The whole matter is already in a state of confusion. I think it is getting worse; I am afraid that it is.
This Bill now provides that there should be no legal standing for any agreement made for surrogacy. That is perfectly all right. But it applies to everybody: the two mothers, the father, anybody else you care to think of. But the practice will not stop. Nobody has pretended that it ever will. It has probably gone on

581
since the beginning of childbearing, for all I know, and will continue here and there. So that all we have is a deterrent, and one of the deterrents that is offered to us in this Bill is in Clause 2, which says:
"A child born to a surrogate mother in pursuance of a surrogacy arrangement shall for all purposes in law be regarded as the child of that mother".
That is perfectly logical; because, although we are talking about the surrogate mother, the clause in fact refers to her as "that mother", so that the confusion comes back at every turn.
But supposing that when this baby is born, or even before it is born and after it has been conceived—and I have fallen into my own trap and used the word "it", for which I apologise; so let me say, before he or she was born—the receiver, the mother, the surrogate mother, the social mother decides that she does not want to receive this baby and refuses to accept it. What can she do? She can hand the baby back to the so-called surrogate mother who is bound in law to admit that she is the legal mother of that child. But she, we can almost say by definition, does not want him. So here, under the auspices of this legislation, we have brought a baby into this world who will not be wanted by anybody at all and will go straight into care.
The question that I want to ask your Lordships is this. I ask it of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, of my noble friend the Minister, of all your Lordships and, perhaps if the Bill gets a Second Reading, of the whole House in Committee later on. Is it right to pass into law a clause which will in some cases—they will not be very common but they will occur, I am certain—make it absolutely certain that a baby is going to be born who will have to be taken away and put into care, no matter what happens?
The central figure in this Bill and in the former Bill—whoever else may think that it is the unfortunate parents who cannot beget or bear a child—I believe is the child. I do not care for the idea of bringing a child into the world, or legislating for it to be brought into the world, and actually preventing it from having any human relationship at all and condemning it to go straight into care. My Lords, the question is this: What do you think about it?
7.58 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, in this Bill we seek to implement the recommendations of the Warnock Report. When the previous Bill was before a Committee of your Lordships I proposed a number of amendments. We did not proceed with them because we were so anxious not to delay the passing of the principal Bill. But now they come before your Lordships in the form of this supplemental Bill. I think that the easiest and best way to explain the position to your Lordships is to take a case which actually came before the courts. It came before the courts in 1978. It was not reported in any law report until 1985, and then only in the family law reports not available in this House. But it gives an illustration of exactly what happened.
A man, a bachelor aged 27, was about to marry a woman aged 39, but the man was anxious to have a baby of his own, a child of his own, although his wife could not bear one. What happened? They went, if you please, to Bow Street. They went along the line of
582
prostitutes who were coming up before the magistrates to be fined and they asked one of the women there about the possibility of what would be a surrogate mother. "Oh," she said, "not me! I won't do it. But if you've got £500 I can introduce to you a girl who would, one who is sort of mixed up with us". She introduced a girl of 19 years of age. Then she had to be taken to a clinic and when this girl of 19 went to the clinic the man, no doubt, masturbated and his semen was extracted from him by a doctor from the clinic. He inseminated the girl of 19 with this man's sperm.
There it was. The baby was conceived. I ought to have said that a sum of £3,000 was to be paid for this. But during the pregnancy the mother, the carrying mother, changed her mind, as so often happens. The carrying mother said that it was her child and that when it was born she wanted to have her child. She did not want to hand it over to the commissioning mother or do anything of that kind, or to the man who provided the semen.
They insisted that they wanted to get the child; in fact, they offered money in order to get the child and they had her for a few days. The case came before the courts and the courts held—and this is surely right—that this agreement was void and unenforceable. Just imagine: could the commissioning mother sue the carrying mother because she wanted to keep her own child? Or if the carrying mother wanted money from the commissioning mother, could she sue for the money? No, my Lords, that is quite impossible; and the courts held that such an agreement was void and unenforceable.
But then, who was the parent of the child? The only conceivable parent of the child was the mother herself—the girl of 19. The man who provided the semen was not the father: he had not gone through the necessary machinery. It was the doctor, if you please, who put the semen into the woman's body. So it is quite plain that the carrying mother was in law the mother; and when the commissioning father wanted access to the child the Court of Appeal said, "No, what has happened is disgraceful conduct". They asked who was the doctor who went forward and performed this disgraceful operation.
The Court of Appeal held that the baby belonged to the carrying mother and that the so-called father had no rights whatever in the child. There is the Children's Act which says the like; and therefore the mother could bring up her own child. Fortunately, in a way, the court envisaged that she might marry, have a husband and bring up this child with him. That is an illustration and from it I ask your Lordships to affirm as law the two principal clauses here.
Mark you, it is only when it is done on a commercial basis, but these two principles apply more generally. The first is:
"Any arrangement which is a surrogacy arrangement is void and unenforceable whether made with a view to payment or not".
That is quite general. Secondly:
"A child born to a surrogate mother in pursuance of a surrogacy arrangement shall for all purposes in law be regarded as the child of that mother".
That, as I understand it, is the law at the moment and it is most important that it should be made clear for the future.

583
Then comes the question: what about the doctors or the intermediaries who arrange it all—the people at the clinic and so on? On that, the Warnock Committee made it quite clear, and perhaps I may read what they said in paragraph 8.18:
"We have considered whether a limited, non-profit making surrogacy service, subject to licensing and inspection, could have any useful part to play but the majority agreed that the existence of such a service would in itself encourage the growth of surrogacy".
Then in black, heavy type follows:
"We recommend that legislation be introduced to render criminal the creation or the operation in the United Kingdom of agencies whose purposes include the recruitment of women for surrogate pregnancy or making arrangements for individuals or couples who wish to utilise the services of a carrying mother, such legislation should be wide enough to include both profit and non-profit making organisations. We further recommend that the legislation be sufficiently wide to render criminally liable the actions of professionals and others who knowingly assist in the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy".
That is the clear recommendation of the Warnock Committee which has been brought into this Bill. I hope it will be implemented, because the doctor who plays such an important part if he is doing it on a commercial basis, a clinic if it is doing it on a commercial basis and those who are receiving payment or the like for it are all parties to this unlawful and undesirable arrangement.
The only qualification which was in the last Bill was: what about the surrogate mother herself? Or what about the man who provides the sperm? According to the Bill as it was when introduced by the Government on the last occasion, they are to go free. The Warnock Report indicated, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, herself indicated that their fear was that they did not want the child to be tainted with illegality. My Lords, the child will never be so tainted. Surely the doctor who performs for a fee—it may be a large fee—or the clinic ought not to go free; or the man such as the one I have described—and incidentally, in the case I referred to, the man was most undesirable, because when he did not get the child he wanted to tell his story to the press. That is the kind of man he was. Is that kind of man to go free?
Whether the mother is to be pitied or whether the man who donated the sperm is to be pitied, they should be given a nominal sentence or let off with a caution or whatever it may be: they would not even be punished. As to the taint of criminality, what about the man who seduces a girl of under 16? He is guilty of a criminal offence. A child is born: is that child tainted with criminality? Surely not. So the argument about the child being tainted with illegality or criminality really does not work, it seems to me. In other words, I ask your Lordships to endorse the Warnock Report and the recommendations which I have mentioned. If there is doubt or difficulty about it, then of course we can discuss that at Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name on the list, but I want to say just one word about something that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I listened with great respect to what he had to say. He drew a picture of a child which when born turned out not to be wanted either by the
584
true mother (the surrogate mother) or the commissioning mother, and as a result became an unwanted child. Has that not been the case hundreds of thousands of times with perfectly normally married parents? One has only to look at Dr. Barnado's to see the result.
I cannot feel that this Bill is going to make things any worse in that way. It is a sad fact that many perfectly normally married parents are utterly lacking in responsibility so far as their own children are concerned. Therefore I feel that this Bill is not going to alter that in the slightest, and I support it thoroughly. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will do the same.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for presenting a Bill which enables this extremely important subject to be aired once again, particularly when Mr. Steptoe and Dr. Robert Edwards of Bourne Hall Clinic in Cambridge have so recently announced new and, I suspect, controversial plans to produce surrogate babies at their clinic.
Let me emphasise straightaway that anything I say in relation to this whole subject is my personal view and does not commit any noble Lords on these Benches.
The Earl of Longford: Hear, hear!
Lord Ennals: I have not said anything yet, my Lords. Let us remember that the original Bill, which went quite quickly through the House in July last year, did not take a position on the principles or practices of surrogacy. It outlawed commercial surrogacy agencies, in my view absolutely rightly.
In our first debate on the report of the Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I made my position clear—that in most respects I supported the recommendations. I do not tie myself to all of them. It would be silly to do so. I warmly support Clause 2 of the Bill, which puts beyond dispute the legal status of the child following a surrogacy arrangement. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is absolutely right. There can and should be no doubt—if there is doubt legislation should clarify the point—that the child is the child of the mother who bore it. That clarification is absolutely in line with the Warnock recommendations.
On the other hand, I must say that I am not happy about Clause 1 and Schedule 2. It seems to me—I may have it wrong; I am not a lawyer—to imply opposition to surrogacy under any circumstances. It would deny a surrogate mother any entitlement to payment for expenses or loss of wages which she incurred. If one looks at Schedule 2, one sees that much of it was in the original Act. It provides:
"(1) No person shall on a commercial basis do any of the following acts in the United Kingdom, that is—

(a) initiate or take part in any negotiations with a view to the making of a surrogacy arrangement,

(b) offer or agree to negotiate the making of a surrogacy arrangement".

Then, the new paragraph (d) provides:
"(d) assist or take part in the establishment of a pregnancy knowing that it is in pursuance of a surrogacy arrangement;"

585
Perhaps I may commend the words of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in the debate in your Lordships' Committee on 28th June 1985. He said:
"it would be wiser to wait to see what view the Government take about the role of voluntary surrogacy as an act that can cement a marriage and support a family. I should be extremely cautious before asking the Committee to support the amendment as drawn".—[Official Report, 28/6/85; col. 924.]
The point was made, perhaps almost prophetically, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when he said in the same debate:
"We can easily envisage a circumstance where a close friend or sister of the infertile woman voluntarily agreed to bear a child for the childless couple. She might, on reliance of a promise of reimbursement, incur considerable expenses as a result of the pregnancy and birth or cease work during the period. The couple might then renege on their agreement. They might refuse to accept the child or to pay medical or other expenses. They might even take the baby and refuse to pay the expenses. We ought to consider this question: do we want to deny a surrogate mother all legal redress, because that is what the amendment does".
The noble Earl continued:
"It may not be in the child's best interests if agreed maintenance costs are withheld at some stage during the pregnancy".—[Official Report, 28/6/85; col. 926.]
When we look at Clause 1 of the Bill and the schedule, we must look very carefully at the implications of what is being proposed.
The words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed prophetically, as I said, to what is now proposed by Mr. Steptoe and Dr. Robert Edwards. Their plans involve the wife's eggs and her husband's sperm. That means an embryo implanted in another woman's womb, but entirely the product of the couple who want the child. They have said that the woman would most likely be a friend or relative. As I said, the baby would be entirely the product of the couple who were unable, literally, to give birth to their own baby.
In our original debate, I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with, and some long experience of, couples who, I believe, would be extremely good parents and who desperately want to have children. There is no God-given or law-given right to have a child, but it is a natural result of marriage. Where that is not possible, it seems to me that if a modern science, properly and effectively controlled, can enable a loving couple to have a child that they know is their own and which comes in no way from the physical product of some other couple, that is something to be desired.
I congratulate Mr. Steptoe and Dr. Edwards on their developments and concern. I have such concern for the tragedy of infertility in such loving couples that I can only welcome what Mr. Steptoe and Dr. Edwards are doing at Bourne Hall. I hope that in Committee we can delete or amend Clause 1. It may be that I have extended the Bill's intention beyond that of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. That we can discover in Committee.
I do not want to stand in the way of the remarkable progress that has been made by Mr. Patrick Steptoe and Dr. Robert Edwards. I believe from my knowledge of them that they seek no personal gain—although they are doctors and they need to be paid—but that they share a wish that I believe many of your Lordships have: a wish to ensure that loving couples can have children of their own.
8.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am sure that you would wish me to thank the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on behalf of the whole House for presenting his Bill. It will allow us a further opportunity to debate fully the many complex issues which the practice of surrogacy present us with. The noble Earl has, as always, presented his arguments with clarity, brevity and eloquence. I shall try to follow his example, at least with regard to clarity, and brevity, in commenting on some of the points which he has made.
The practice of surrogacy is not new. Speaking in the Third Reading debate on the Surrogacy Arrangements Act, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that one could argue that a form of surrogacy took place in the arrangements between Abraham and his slave, in view of the barrenness of Sarah. I cannot claim that the Government's concern dates back to biblical times, but we have been aware for many years of the concern felt by large numbers of people about the practice. The development of the techniques of artificial insemination by donor and in vitro fertilisation led some to fear that there would be an increase in the number of surrogate pregnancies. This they saw as an unintended and unfortunate side effect of developments in medical science. Concern about such issues was one of the reasons which led the Government to set up the Warnock Committee in 1982 to look at the whole range of recent developments in the treatment of infertility.
As this is the first time that I have spoken on these matters in this House, perhaps I should put on record my belated thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee for their very important work in this field. I believe that, on the question of surrogacy, they have helped to promote a very constructive public debate of the issues, although unanimity has not yet been achieved. A large number of organisations and individuals submitted evidence to the Warnock Committee, and even larger numbers responded during our consultation exercise on its recommendations. I believe that the exercise of gathering evidence and consulting on recommendations helped to develop public knowledge of the issues involved. This was of immense assistance in allowing us to see where concern was most urgently and unanimously felt, and it allowed us to move very quickly to legislate in the Surrogacy Arrangements Act to meet these concerns.
I will say a few words about the Act and what it entails. The Act has comprehensively tackled the prohibition of commercial surrogacy agencies, by defining the activities in relation to surrogacy which are prohibited if done on a commercial basis. It also deals with the question of advertising and has made it an offence to advertise surrogacy services, irrespective of whether the advertisement is placed by an agency, commissioning parents or by a surrogate mother herself. All the main forms of advertising in this country, in newspapers, periodicals or broadcasting media, are covered by this provision. This prohibition is designed to ensure that the first steps towards the kind of commercial activity which the Act as a whole is designed to prohibit do not occur as a result of advertising.

587
I would like to remind your Lordships of the overwhelming support which this measure received. Rarely can legislation in such a morally sensitive field have been passed so quickly and with such general support. I am grateful to your Lordships for the role which you played in helping it to be enacted. In steering it through last year, we stressed that it was only a limited measure, in that it did not deal with all the matters which Warnock suggested needed legislation, either on surrogacy or on the other matters with which Warnock dealt. However, beyond the very narrow boundaries of the Act, it is difficult to see other areas in these matters where a similar degree of unity exists.
In looking at the response to the consultation on the report, I am constantly struck by both the diversity of views expressed and by the depth of feeling with which they are held. This evening the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, both giving personal deeply held views, are examples yet again of what I mean. We should, perhaps, not be surprised at this, given the nature of the issues involved. But we should also not underestimate the difficulties which are presented when we seek adequately to take account of all viewpoints.
What I have said about diversity of opinions certainly applies to the subject of surrogacy. Not all members of the Warnock Committee felt able to support its recommendations, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, pointed out in her preface to the report, in this disagreement they reflected the range of views within society as a whole. There are those who view the area with complete distaste and would wish to see a total legislative ban on all forms of surrogacy. It is possible, on the other hand, to disapprove of any organised surrogacy service, yet to look ambivalently on an informal arrangement made, perhaps between members of the same family or between friends. Recent press reports show, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen appreciates, that surrogacy remains a topic of considerable interest and sensitivity. My remarks are made merely to mirror all shades of public opinion.
The Government are currently considering all the issues related to surrogacy and the others covered by the Warnock Report. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that we shall try to take all these views into account in deciding on future action. But as I hope I have indicated, and as he realises, this is no easy task given the diversity of opinion which exists. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned the question of a review of the law on legitimacy. This is, of course, a matter for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The Warnock Report recommended that AID children should be legitimised, as the Law Commission recommended. This whole question is being looked at.
Until, therefore, we have determined what we intend to do about the matters dealt with by the Warnock Report, our stance to this Bill has perforce to be a neutral one. Having said that, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for having made his intentions about the need to extend the legislation enacted last year very clear and I appreciate the forbearance of the noble and learned
588
Lord, Lord Denning, during the passage of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act.
I do not intend to speak in detail tonight about the effect of this Bill. Its provisions range from seemingly straightforward clarifications of the law to extensions of the controls to be placed on surrogacy which go further than the Warnock Report recommended. I am sure that the noble Earl would not expect me to give him a blanket acceptance of the various points which his Bill covers, although some of them might in essence command a good measure of acceptance.
I can, however, reassure him that we shall pay very close attention not just to the debate on this Bill, but also to the points which the Bill seeks to achieve in our consideration of the response to the Warnock Report. However, I cannot, even if I look into my crystal ball, forecast either the timing or content of any legislation of this kind. While I cannot give any view on the prospects for a Bill, I am certainly glad to offer the noble Earl an assurance that the points he and other noble Lords have put forward will be looked at very carefully indeed when we come to look at the content of any future Government Bill which will deal with the matters such as these on a wider basis.
As I have said, we are neutral to this Bill, so while I fear that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, may find my words unsatisfactory, I hope he may gain a crumb of comfort from the fact that the Government will take very careful note of what has been said this evening; and I am sure that in deciding on our future course of action we shall have been considerably helped by this debate.
8.26 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, may I, in winding up, thank your Lordships for the generally sympathetic view that has been expressed from all sides of the House towards this Bill. May I say that of course the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and anybody else who is a Member of your Lordships' House, is perfectly free to put down amendments at the Committee stage which would have the effect of altering the character of this Bill and the precise provisions contained in it.
I ought perhaps to remind your Lordships that, though I spoke at Second Reading last summer on the Government's Bill, for private reasons I was unable to participate in the Committee stage. So nobody knows exactly what was my own view on some of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at that time.
If I may just pause to deal with one or two points made in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will of course put down further amendments himself and I will give him any help I can on that. He mentioned the question of the diary. This story came into my ken, as it were, after the Bill had been drafted and I must take legal advice between now and Committee stage as to whether or not the Bill does in fact legislate for this mischief.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and I both share dubiety on the subject of surrogacy. At Second Reading of the Act, I said:
"One last point concerns the Long Title of the Bill, which refers to surrogate motherhood. I think that this is a most ambiguous term. A surrogate is a substitute"—

589
this was the noble Earl's point.
"You cannot have a substitute for a mother—on one definition of the word 'mother'. The term we need—I am just coining a new scientific term—is allogenetic pregnancy; that is to say, pregnancy resulting from a genetic make-up that is not the make-up of the pregnant woman".—[Official Report, 14/6/85; cols. 1528–9.]
That term has not caught on, but I will not trouble your Lordships with it any further because our hour is up.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, asked me a straight question: is it right to pass into law permission to bring a child into the world having no relation to anyone at all? My answer to that, quite simply, would be no, I do not think it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—and I must thank her for her sympathetic attitude to my Bill—referred to the great diversity of opinion. When we have diversity of opinion in a democracy we simply put it to the vote. We cannot suspend decision indefinitely because there is a diversity of opinion about which decision should be taken. We put it to the vote. That is the service which I hope I have rendered to your Lordships' House by this Second Reading. It gives noble Lords an opportunity to table amendments and to vote on them knowing that they cannot damage the Act now on the statute book whichever way the vote goes. With those remarks, I shall resume my seat. I should like to thank everybody for having dealt with the matter within the hour.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 to 8.35 p.m.]

Sex Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Protection of existing conditions) below").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke to this amendment in moving the previous amendments which the Committee approved. I beg to move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Where under any enactment or any subordinate legislation provision is made for the holding of a secret ballot to ascertain the opinions of workers before an exemption order may be granted to an employer, no order shall be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of this section or section 6(3) below in respect of that enactment or subordinate legislation unless a secret ballot has been held to ascertain the opinion of the workers affected and a majority vote recorded in favour of the order proposed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is still as relevant to the Bill as before the passing in Committee
590
of Amendment No. 9 and the debates which have preceded it. It arises from the circumstance that certain types of shift work have for many years been open to a special type of procedure. What is now Section 97 of the Factories Act 1961 is derived from the Employment of Women and Young Persons Act 1936 and an order made under that Act which is still in existence.
The provision has for many years opened the way to a vote by workers as to whether or not certain types of shift work should be accepted. At the moment it works in the following way. Under Section 97 of the Factories Act, the Minister may, where the employer applies, authorise the employment of women and young persons over 16 on a system of shifts which begin not earlier than six in the morning and end not later than 10 at night or two o'clock on a Saturday. Before the authority can be given, however, the Minister will have made provision by regulations for the workpeople to be consulted. Section 97(4) of the 1961 Act provides, as it has been provided since 1936, that the workpeople's opinion shall be consulted,
"for the ascertainment of their opinions by secret ballot before any application is granted under this section".
The Health and Safety Executive now plays a role in granting that application, but that is not central to the point at issue.
On the basis of a ballot form which is provided for under the order of 1936 in an election which is run jointly by the employer and the workpeople's representatives, which of course in most cases is their union, unless a majority of workpeople votes in favour of the shift system the Minister cannot grant that application. It is perfectly true that at the moment that applies only to women workers. It is true also, however, that there is a case in some industries for considering whether it should not apply to men and women workers alike. We hope that that is one of the matters the Minister will review when considering equal protection orders.
However, on the present provisions the introduction of the scheme was of some importance. In introducing it in 1936, the Home Secretary of the day, who had responsibility, said that it was a very important provision and that a very careful procedure had been laid down. He added:
"All of us want to do the right thing for the workpeople, and hope every honourable Member will think that was a right thing to do".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/36; col. 1674.]
He reminded the House of a number of statements by the chief inspector of factories, who had in previous years approved that experiment, as it then was, in factory legislation which proved, to quote the chief inspector,
"useful and beneficial to employers and workers alike".
It is true that the provision does not apply where there is, as the Act puts it, a recently-established or newly-established factory. The explanation for that, in the discussions of the procedure at the time, was that workers would then have the choice as to whether or not they went to work at a particular factory.
As it stands, it is a procedure that introduces something that the Government, in other circumstances, frequently state that they wish to pursue; namely, the involvement of workpeople, and

591
here, the involvement of workpeople by way of a ballot. It would be incomprehensible if a government of the complexion of the present Government did not take seriously, as I am sure the Minister will, the statements of the Home Secretary at the time, Sir John Simon, as he was—the scourge of the General Strike. That is another example of how some provisions derive from a stable that is scarcely Bolshevik. I am sure that the Minister will remember the name of Sir John Simon when he comes to reply.
More important still, the Government like ballots. They are always going for ballots. Of course the Government like ballots according to their own rules and according to the results that they want. That is why the Government are so cross about the political fund ballots that workers in trade unions have held recently. Not liking the results, the Government have threatened to change the rules. However, when the Government see a provision for ballots where the result is to prohibit the prerogatives of management—as is the case here—then they do not seem to encourage ballots at all. The Government then deregulate ballots and sweep them away. They then call ballots outmoded and outdated.
When is a ballot outmoded and outdated? It is when the Government do not like it, and when it is a ballot that gives rights to workers in respect of management as against the relationship of workers within their own union. Whatever may be the merits of ballots within unions, this is a ballot that is an aspect of industrial democracy of a kind to which the Government say they are pledged, although when it comes to management the Government then talk about achieving their ends by voluntary means.
Here is a provision where workers have had the right to ballot in certain circumstances. It has applied mainly to women workers and to young persons. We say in this amendment that that right should not be taken away. The Committee has already voted in principle, and indeed specifically, for the protection of workers' rights, in the sense that workers must not be dismissed for refusing to do that which they could lawfully refuse to do under the present protective legislation. Surely the same principle applies to this amendment. It is true that the amendment achieves it in a slightly different way. The amendment says that where they would have the right to ballot on the shift work under existing provisions, they should have the right to ballot on the question of whether that provision should be repealed.
8.45 p.m.
That is a perfectly logical proposal. The Government can take their chances. If they are not afraid of what workers will say about their suggestions, the Government can accept the amendment. It has been said—not least by the Secretary of State—that many women want to work different shifts. Indeed we know that it is a fact in some industries that such is true. So why not have a ballot rather than sweep the whole thing away as being something rather tedious and not to be thought about after dinner?
This is a very serious matter. The balance of the evidence suggests, as many articles and studies have shown, that certain types of shift work involve great
592
problems for all workers and especially women workers in the recent past and at the moment. There are unsocial hours, problems in relation to families, and problems in relation to transportation—problems that have affected the deliberations of this Committee earlier this afternoon, not to the Government's advantage.
This is surely a consequential provision. If the Government cannot accept it as it stands, will they come forward with their own way of consulting workers, who have a right to be consulted at the moment but who will lose that right if the Bill goes through as it is now drafted? If the Government can suggest a better way in which workers can retain their right to be consulted then of course we shall be only too happy to withdraw the amendment completely. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As the Committee will know, under the existing provisions of the Factories Act the Health and Safety Executive can issue special exemption orders that enable women to work outside the hours normally prohibited. Before doing so, the HSE must be satisfied that the wishes of the workpeople have been taken into account. But that is not the only means by which the normal restrictions can be varied. Section 97 of the Act also is concerned with authorising shift working involving hours that would otherwise be prohibited, and that section goes further than general consultation providing that, except in the case of newly-established factories, the majority of the workpeople concerned must have agreed to that pattern of working by means of a secret ballot.
It may be that the amendment aims to keep in being arrangements for the Section 97 ballots in certain circumstances. It is defective if that is the aim, partly because of its reference to exemption orders, as under Section 97, authorisations, not exemption orders, have been granted.
Even if we consider the spirit rather than the letter of the amendment, we are in difficulties. The effect would be that before the provisions as they affect women in Section 97 are repealed, as proposed by Part II of the schedule to this Bill, secret ballots must be held and majority votes obtained. But on what question would the workforces affected be balloted? They would need to be asked what their views were on the repeal of a section of the Factories Act that provided for exceptions from otherwise defunct legislation once the rest of the repeals proposed by this Bill have been implemented.
There would be no requirement in the case of workplaces where authorisations on the basis of a secret ballot had in the past been granted to test the views of the workforce on whether their working practices should be changed. The question to be answered in those workplaces, and in every other workplace currently within the scope of the Act, would be the same; the test would be of views on whether or not Section 97 should be repealed. That would not make sense.
It may be worth noting that since the 1936 order was introduced, between 1,800 and 1,900 authorisation orders have been issued—an average of some 40 each year. As they do not have to be renewed, and

593
employers do not always notify the executive if they cease to work the shift system, identification of employees currently covered by an order would be time-consuming and difficult. If workers are to be affected in the future who can say who these workpeople are and how we identify them? I think what the noble Lord wants is that this repeal should take place only by means of a referendum; but I am afraid I cannot accept that that would be the right way forward. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree and will not press his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I might be allowed to add to what my noble friend said. Reading the noble Lord's amendment, it strikes me that whereas it may be—although that is pressing it a lot—he has logic behind him in continuing his argument about Section 97 of the Factories Act being repeated, as it were, on a wider scale, and that in subsection (4) of this clause he has an outside of a point, surely he is being a little greedy in his amendment to include subsection (3) of Clause 6 which purely relates to an administrative process exercised by the Secretary of State; the relevant sections already having been voted into existence by Parliament, if that is relevant. Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Lord has spoiled his amendment by being over-ambitious, quite apart from the very sound arguments of my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and especially the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his paternal concern for the state of my amendment. He feels that it is over-ambitious or has vaulted too much. I thought the noble Lord said Clause 3 subsection (6) but I must have misheard him because there is no such subsection.
Lord Mottistone: I said subsection (3) of Clause 6, which the noble Lord includes in his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Now I follow him, but I do not agree with him about that. There would be a ballot—and this answers what was said by the noble Lord and by the Minister—of the workers concerned who would be subject to this procedure before an authorisation order could be granted to an employer. I am grateful to the Minister for correcting my amendment; it is defective in that it refers to an exemption order when it should be an authorisation order. Those workers concerned would be asked to ballot on whether or not the right under Section 97 would be taken away.
The noble Lord says that it is not clear what the question would be, and the amendment of course may be defective in another way: that there would be a need to give the Minister the power, if we did not have it under Section 97, to put an appropriate question. At the moment the question is clear. It is in the schedule to the order: those in favour of the shifts described and those against the shifts described. It could be either in that form or in the form of whether or not they give up their right to ballot. I do not mind. There are half-a-dozen questions which are appropriate. The noble Lord can take his pick.
The noble Lord said that it would be difficult to identify these workers. However, this shows the new approach that is coming out of the Secretary of State's
594
department. It is always terribly difficult to know things. We do not know how many orders there are for women on shift work. We no longer have the figures for women who work by night. We do not know, how many people can be identified as coming under Section 97. It is terribly difficult to find out. Goodness me! in the old days the old Ministry of Labour would have known these things and the Department of Employment would have found out. If they did not know, they would have made sure that an investigation took place if it was needed. The modern view is rather like the attitude of the noble Lord in regard to our successful amendment. He is out of date. He is way back before investigations and inquiries. We are in favour of finding out. I do not believe—and this is a serious point—that it would be so impossible to find out who are these workers. What an idea that it is not possible! That is ridiculous.
The Minister said that ballots are now defunct; but all the Government have been doing for the past five or six years is inventing new ballots. Why does he say this ballot is defunct? It would put some curb or limitation—a reasonable limitation—upon management introducing shifts, or double shifts. That is why he says it is defunct. I am disappointed in the noble Lord because I thought that after dinner, after what we hoped before the meal would be a working meal when he could take in what happened this afternoon—
Lord Tregfarne: No.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord says, "No". I understand. The Minister is entitled to his rest just like anyone under the Factories Act at the moment; although their rights will be destroyed if the Bill goes through and the Minister has his way.
However, the Minister and the Government have had time to consider the state of the Bill and to come forward and say, "All right, we will consider this matter of workers who have the right to ballot. We do not think there is any need for it, although I have not heard any reason why they should not have it. I have heard certain difficulties about what is the question, and who are the workers, and there are certain practical problems, but I think they can be cured." No value judgment has been placed by the Government contrary to workers having this right. I respect the Government for that because they are in favour of ballots. Therefore, could not the Government, in the time they now have and in considering the amendments which have been passed today, beseech themselves to reconsider this issue and see whether a few ballots might not be a good thing for workers who have had the right to ballot in the past? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
("Further protection for existing women workers.
.The dismissal of a woman who—

(a) immediately before the coming into force of section 3 of this Act was employed in work to which any of the provisions referred to in that section applied, and

595

(b) remained continuously employed in the same work until the effective date of termination of her employment,

shall be regarded as unfair for the purposes of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) is that she had refused to work at hours at which her employment would have been unlawful if those provisions had remained in force.")
The noble Baroness said: I take the advice of the Government as to whether I should now put forward this amendment, proposing a new clause, in view of the passing of Clause 3.
Baroness Seear: Yes, go ahead.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I therefore beg leave of the Committee to move Amendment No. 23. While agreeing in 1979, and again now, that the Factories Act should be repealed in order to equalise the conditions under which both men and women work, the Equal Opportunities Commission then, as now, propose minimum standards of welfare, a code of practice in the longer term and transitional measures to protect women currently employed subject to the present restrictions.
While we welcome the freedom women would gain to work shifts if they wish, we are also anxious that some women may be subjected to pressure to work shifts against their will, and therefore be forced out of work. In the Shops Bill the Government made provision for the protection of existing shopworkers from being dismissed if they refused to do shop work on Sundays. We feel that similar protection should be available to existing women workers who are unable to work shifts or other hitherto protected hours. I emphasise that this protection applies only to those already employed in the industry so it would gradually become ineffective. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We have no objection to this amendment, or had no objection to this amendment as it stood, but we believe that our own series of amendments which were passed earlier this evening in effect supervene this amendment. Nevertheless, since the noble Baroness has moved it, we see no reason why we should not support it.
All the arguments used by the noble Baroness are parallel ones to the amendments we advanced earlier this evening and which found the approval of the Committee. Everything involved in this amendment is a logical extension of what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said when he proposed a similar pattern of protection for existing workers in the Shops Bill. Indeed, we accept that in some ways the words in the amendment are an improvement on our drafting in the series of amendments that we moved earlier this evening. For example, we believe that her use of the term "immediately before" is probably better than our term "at the date of". Moreover, she specifies the need for continuous employment, and we accept that. In some ways the detailed provisions in her amendment are an improvement on those in ours.
9 p.m.
Our criticisms of the amendment of the noble Baroness are, first, that she protects only workers who
596
refuse to do whatever they are asked; for example, to do night work. She does not seek to deal with the situation, as we tried to, in which employers may indirectly put pressure on workers; where they may assume that workers will not work night work and may engage other workers who will work night work and who are not covered by the protection of provisions that we are both trying to introduce. I feel that in that sense what she is saying is somewhat narrower than the provisions in our amendment.
Moreover, the noble Baroness stipulates only those who do the same work, so that, for example, minor job changes might mean that workers are outside the protection of the amendment; whereas we say quite clearly that the protection that we suggested earlier would arise unless a worker agreed in writing to do the work which previously was not allowable under the legislation that the Bill seeks to set aside.
But the most important objection that we have, and the reason why we argue that the amendment in general terms is narrower than ours, is that the noble Baroness is concerned only with protecting women workers from the consequences of the Government's legislation. She is not concerned with what would happen as a result of Clause 4 of the Bill, which would remove the protection that exists in the baking industry under the 1954 Act; whereas our series of amendments were designed to do those things. Nevertheless, in general terms, if she wishes to press the amendment on the Government, we cannot say that we are against it.
Lord Trefgarne: I recognise that my noble friend, speaking from the particular point of experience and authority that she does, feels strongly. The amendment presents us with difficulties. The Government's general views on this matter were deployed at an earlier stage this evening on similar amendments. However, I give her an assurance that if she agrees to withdraw the amendment, I shall happily receive her between now and the Report stage of the Bill to discuss the matter further, or, if she would prefer, ask one of my noble or right honourable friends to receive her in the Department of Employment to discuss the point.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I thank my noble friend, and, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the amendment. I shall take pleasure in visiting the department to discuss the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Repeal of Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): It may be helpful if I point out to the Committee that if Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are agreed to, they would fall if Amendment No. 26 were carried.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Protection of existing conditions) below").
The noble Lord said: This was part of a series of amendments which, in effect, I moved on Amendment No. 10 which was passed by the Committee and

597
therefore is entailed in that amendment. I move Amendment No. 24 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 32, leave out from ("1954") to end of line 36 and insert ("(which imposes restrictions on the hours of work of bakery workers) shall apply equally to men and women workers.").
The noble Baroness said: The intention of this amendment is to ensure that the restrictions on night working for men which apply in this industry should apply equally to women. The issue of restrictions on night baking has a long history. There were numerous inquiries into night baking and conditions in bakeries during the last century, and there has been a series of committees in this century: the Mackenzie Committee in 1919, the Peat Committee in 1925, a committee on night baking in 1951 and eventually, of course, we had the 1954 Act.
The baking union, which represents many people working in the industry, is concerned that if the 1954 Act is repealed that will open up the possibility of permanent night work. The removal of the 1954 Act and the protection that it provides could put increased pressure on some parts of the workforce to increase already long hours, and those hours are exceptionally long. I am advised that in the bread, flour and confectionery sector 49·9 hours is the average working week. That is according to the New Earnings Survey 1984; and those are the highest hours in manufacturing industry. Additional problems will also be created if food is to be retailed on a Sunday, and thus Saturday night baking becomes a real issue. At present that occurs only at Christmas and New Year, and that is by agreement.
Although it may be true that some people prefer working night shifts, they tend to be in a minority. Since the mid-1950s I believe that the industry has generally regulated night work, and the vast majority of people currently employed in the industry have therefore based their lives around the 1954 Act. The Government may say, as I believe that the Department of Employment has already said, that they believe that the Act is outdated and unnecessary; that the particular problems of the industry which the Act sought to solve in the 1950s are no longer prevalent; and that it is anomalous that the baking industry should be singled out for special treatment. I may say that the union emphatically believes that that is not so, and it has been willing to give evidence to the department to prove its point.
Moreover, there does not seem to have been pressure from employers' organisations either for the repeal of the 1954 Act. As I understand it, the National Association of Master Bakers is officially opposed to its repeal, and main plant bakers who produce about 60 per cent. of the country's bread are indifferent. There has been no pressure whatsoever from either side of the industry for repeal of the restrictions contained in the Act.
It would be seen as a grave worsening of conditions for bakery workers were it to be repealed. I beg your Lordships not simply to sweep those protections aside as an afterthought in a Bill that has been about something entirely different. The European Court
598
decision on sex discrimination in collective agreements has nothing whatsoever to do with night working in bakeries. It is an attempt to deregulate by stealth and, in my view, it should be strongly opposed. However, it is our view that we should support what the EOC recommended some years ago and extend to women the protection that exists for men against being required to work at night in bakeries. In that way, the equality argument is satisfied. If it is felt, as it may well be felt, that the Act is outdated and should be repealed, then all I can say is, "Please, do not do this without further investigation". We have, again, legislation that has been in existence for a long time after a series of committees have looked at conditions in the industry. The union, representing members in the industry, has no objection, I understand, to further investigation into the general situation. What it does object to—and I would also urge your Lordships to object to it—is having this legislation swept aside without adequate investigation. Pending such investigation, the equality argument should be satisfied by extending the protections to women. I beg to move.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: Do I understand that my amendment, Amendment No. 26, together with the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 32, must be taken at the same time?
Viscount Long: No.
Lord Trefgarne: That is entirely a matter for my noble friend. If she chooses not to speak now, may I reply to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness? Clause 4 of the Bill aims to repeal, as the noble Baroness understands, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. That Act is framed to apply only to male bakery workers and makes specific reference to the exclusion from its scope of women and young people, whose hours are regulated by the Factories Act 1961. If the 1954 Act continued to control men's hours in baking while those provisions in the 1961 Act dealing with women's hours of work were repealed, a discriminatory anomaly would arise. Men's hours would continue to be controlled, but it would be entirely open to employers and their workforces to negotiate whatever hours of work for female employees they saw fit. This would clearly be nonsense.
There are two ways out of this conundrum. The first is to repeal the 1954 Act, which is the way the Government have chosen. The second is to extend the 1954 Act, as proposed by the amendment. Clearly, extending the scope of the Act, already more than 30 years old, is in direct conflict with our policy of removing unnecessary burdens on business to encourage enterprise to thrive. I do not claim that repeal will galvanise the baking industry overnight. Obviously, it will not. But to keep in being and, in some respects, to extend the paraphernalia of exemptions by collective agreements and the liability to official intervention that keeping the Act would entail is clearly not the right course. It would simply amount to yet another variation on the theme of Government-imposed regulation on enterprise which acts as a brake on the wealth and job-creating process.
There is another strand to our argument that extending the scope of the 1954 Act would be wrong.

599
It is our view that we can no longer justify this statutory underpinning of the baking industry's collective bargains. After all, baking is alone among all other sectors of the economy in having this sort of statutory provision. As I have said, the Act is more than 30 years old. It is perfectly true that in the first half of this century a number of committees examined the problems of the industry and that the 1954 Act followed the last of these. It is equally true that none of the committees judged that there were any good grounds for saying that nightwork was detrimental to the health of the operatives.
Let us be clear that the 1954 Act came into operation because of the difficulties the industry faced in reaching sensible and workable agreements on hours of work. The Rees Committee in 1951 concluded:
"Agreement is always a more suitable method of regulation than legislation and if the Industry had not shown so clearly in England and Wales its inability to reach agreement, the proposals we have made would be unnecessary. We trust that the influence of this, the third and we hope the last Committee on Night Baking, will stimulate progress towards an effective system of joint organisation and negotiation which is desirable in the best interest of the Baking Industry and the public which it serves".
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Would the Minister, in quoting the extract from the Rees Committee report, not agree that if he read out the rest of the report we would find that the committee recommended that there should be legislation; that the Government, in moving that legislation, accepted that it was the basis of collective bargaining; that such legislation remains the basis of collective bargaining; and that before it is swept away and without deleterious effect perhaps another committee should look at the matter in the way that the Rees Committee did?
Lord Trefgarne: No. The trouble was that it was not possible to reach a sensible collective bargain in this matter and that is why legislation had to be introduced as the basis upon which a collective bargain could be agreed. If we had to introduce legislation for every collective bargain that now exists in British industry we should be very busy indeed.
With this view in mind, the 1954 Act was drafted to enable the Secretary of State to exempt from its provisions employers who are covered by an effective voluntary agreement which makes the application of the Bill unnecessary. Today over two-thirds of the employers in the industry have hours of work which are set by collective agreements and are therefore exempt from the provisions of the Act. Indeed, the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1979 found that agreements between employers and unions have replaced the provisions of the Act throughout a large part of the industry.
We believe therefore that the industry now has that effective system of joint organisation which the Rees Committee hoped would develop. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that, without the underpinning given to these agreements by the Act, employers would impose substantially different hours of work. I believe that these provisions ought now to be swept away and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I am rather sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, did not speak to her amendments because that would have given us an opportunity to assess the relative merits of the two sets of amendments.
It seems to me that the Minister has now preempted any discussion of her amendments because he has in effect turned down any likelihood of amending this section of the Bill. The Minister has again referred to the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1979, but of course the recommendation of that particular report was in relation to the baking industry—that the protection should not only be kept but should be extended to women as well. Everyone will agree that it is a nonsensical situation that women are less well protected than men in the baking industry.
As the Minister has said, there are two ways of action: repeal the 1954 Act or extend it to women. It seems to me that in the light of the recommendation of the Equal Opportunities Commission and of what has been said this evening the sensible and constructive course would be to extend it to women.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to take issue with the noble Baroness on one small point, which is her suggestion that this proposal is brand new and has been thrust upon people and that we should have more time for discussion. Discussions about this matter have been continuing on and off both unofficially and sometimes officially. I had the privilege of being the employers' secretary for the Joint Industrial Council for the biscuit industry for some years during the last decade and from time to time we discussed this very point. Because we had a collective agreement which effectively pre-empted the need for that particular Act, there was really no need to make a great fuss about it. At that time also there was no real suggestion that there were women in large numbers who wanted to work at night. I have since found, rather interestingly, that there are rather more than one ever thought who do want to work at night. So that is a new factor which changes the situation.
As my noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, there are the two alternatives. It seems to me quite strange that the baking industry should have a particular Act of Parliament when nobody else has one in this particular respect. I should have thought that as collective bargaining is now in a much better form than ever it was earlier in the century, the arguments for sweeping away this Act of Parliament on the principle that we are over-legislated for anyhow is a very sound one. I should have thought that the solution which the Government have produced is much the best one and I hope very much that noble Lords opposite will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him a question. I shall preface my remarks by saying that, as the noble Lord has said that he knows of cases of women wanting to do night work and so on, I hope that he will make that sort of experience concrete and feed it into the discussions which must take place if the

601
Government are to take seriously anything that happens in this Committee.
I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. He has mentioned the biscuit industry, which I believe is governed by orders under the Factories Act and not under the 1954 Act. In his experience of employers does he know of any communication—at least any major communication—from any part or section of the baking industry employers which has asked for the repeal of this legislation, which is an integral part of the bargaining structure in that industry and not merely an adjunct to it?
Lord Mottistone: Certainly there have been parts of the biscuit baking industry which have sought to have it abolished, but they have not made a great issue of it. We have had a perfectly good collective agreement through the JIC, so there has been no need to make a great issue of it. On the other hand, there has not been suitable legislation on which to tag it, and it does not deserve a Bill of its own. When now confronted with the fact that the ladies want to be treated just like the men, which is a new idea which has been growing in recent years, it provides an opportunity for sizing up the situation. All my colleagues in the biscuit industry, whom I do not now serve directly in the way that I used to do, are delighted with the legislation as it stands, and welcome very much Clause 4 of the Bill. Perhaps that answers the noble Lord's question.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am rather disappointed with the response that we have received from the Minister this evening. He has spoken often about burdens on industry. I draw attention to a copy of the British Baker which is the organ of the baking industry. I am looking at the issue for 22nd February 1986 which says that the national association's official line on the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 is that it would oppose a repeal, and to the best of my knowledge that is still the situation. As I said earier, there is no pressure at all from either side of this industry for any change.
On the other hand, let me repeat what I said earlier. As far as the union at least is concerned, it is willing to have an investigation. Nobody is saying that we should continue with this legislation. If, indeed, it is out of date, then let us look at it. However, let us not sweep it aside as a part of a Bill on something quite different; namely, sex discrimination in collective agreements.
Therefore, while I do not intend to press my amendment this evening, I think that it would be rather a good idea to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, to move her amendment. In order to do that, I propose to withdraw my amendment and to allow the noble Baroness to move hers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 26:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954.
.—(1) Section 11(2) of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 shall cease to have effect.
(2) Part VI of the Factories Act 1961 shall not apply to any women to whom the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 applies.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26 and to speak to Amendment No. 32 which is consequential. Clause 3 removes restrictions on the hours and times of work of adult women and my noble friend the Secretary for State said, at Second Reading, that with the repeal of those restrictions for women a major anomaly would occur if the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, were not also repealed, because it would continue to prevent men working in night bakeries while the women's employment would be unregulated. The Equal Opportunities Commission felt that that anomaly would be better removed by including women within the protection rather than removing both sexes. We feel that it is necessary to protect them from permanent nightwork.
At Second Reading, my noble friend the Secretary of State stated that over two-thirds of the employees in the industry work hours set by collective agreements which are, therefore, exempt from the Act's provisions, and that assertion has been repeated tonight. That may be so, but just as with our present Sex Discrimination Act the provisions of which are there as a legally enforceable fall-back, the same must be borne of the bakery Act. If it were repealed, there would be no obligation on the employer to consider seriously the proper control of permanent night work. The Act was brought in for men only in 1954 and we regard it as still relevant and necessary.
At a time when, by new legislation, we are making it possible for women to work at night, surely it would be prudent to keep the existing protection for men and to extend it to women rather than sweeping away all protection at one fell swoop. That would make it more difficult for women to work in the baking industry rather than less so, which is not, I imagine, the intention of the Bill, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not really have very much more to say to my noble friend in addition to my remarks on the earlier amendment on this topic. However, let me just say this. The special provisions which we are now seeking to repeal with regard to the bakery industry are, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, unique to the baking industry. That is not quite correct. I must not exaggerate the position. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, referred to the sheet glass industry in his earlier remarks, and I am advised that there is indeed certain statutory provision with regard to their hours of work; but that is a different matter because I am told that that particular provision stems from a certain international agreement which places an obligation upon us to have that legislation in place. Of course that is not the case so far as the bakery industry is concerned.
What my noble friend Lady Platt is seeking is to extend the essentially unique provision that we have made for the bakery industry. That unique provision has been falling into increased disuse in recent years. As I explained during my earlier remarks, the majority of the baking industry—and I am told an increasing proportion of the industry—now rely upon negotiated agreements and do not therefore need the provisions of this Act. I anticipate that that will be increasingly the position as the years pass.
The Act in due course may very well fall into almost complete disuse. I think we are right therefore to

603
propose to your Lordships that this provision should be repealed. If we are going to do that, clearly I could not agree that we should extend its provisions to cover the employment of women in this particular industry, and in this industry alone. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded by that and not seek to press her amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: If the noble Minister believes that this particular protection is falling into disuse, or is likely to fall into disuse as the number of collective agreements increase, would it not be a better approach to allow it to fall into disuse instead of amending the provision under the present Act? The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, referred to the fear of the Equal Opportunities Commission that if we were to remove the protection now it might lead to permanent night working, and almost nothing but night working, in the baking industry, which would be a deterrent to many women joining the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has rightly said that among some women there is a desire to work nights. It suits their particular family and domestic arrangements. On the other hand, there are other women who find it absolutely impossible to work nights because of their family commitments. Therefore it seems to me that in the light of developments it would be much better to extend this protection to women until such time as there was no need for any legislation in the baking industry to cover night working.
Baroness Seear: I should like to ask the Minister to look again at his argument that it is not necessary to have the legislation because collective agreements are, as I understand him to be implying, following the same line in control over hours. But of course they are only following this line because the legislation is there. If the legislation were removed the collective agreements might over time—and perhaps not over a very long time—take on a different complexion altogether. You have to see the two things together. The way in which collective bargaining has developed is because of the existence of the legislation. If you remove the legislation, in five years' time collective agreements will probably read quite differently.
Lord Trefgarne: I have made it clear that this provision applies to the baking industry alone. This special protection which the noble Baroness is seeking is for the baking industry alone, and I do not think that that is right or proper. If I could follow the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the one option we do not have, I suggest, is to do nothing, because that would mean that the employment of men was controlled in the baking industry but not of women. That is not, I think, the arrangement she wants.
Baroness Lockwood: I am sorry if I was misunderstood. I certainly did not intend to imply that we should do nothing. Indeed, I think my final remarks were concerned to extend the protection of women, because I am well aware of the anomaly and some of the problems that have been caused.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This Committee must press the Minister and the Government to think again on this matter. The record will show by the time this clause is completed in Committee an overwhelming case against merely the sweeping away of the 1954 Act in regard to the baking industry. I limit myself to two matters because the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Lockwood, and others have made the point. But these are still not understood by the Minister because of his latest intervention.
First, the idea that collective bargaining is counter-posed to legislation in this industry is false. It is historically false, it is industrially false and it is even conceptually false. The Minister seems to have some complaint that he finds a piece of legislation that deals with an individual industry. That is the attitude which he must somehow overcome, with the leave of his noble and right honourable friends. It is legislation which is concerned with particular industries and real people in particular situations that we are asking the Government to consider and have made them consider, so that collective agreements and legislation all play a part in life. In the baking industry they play a part integrally in the arrangements in the industry and they are directed at night work. That seems to me what is also wrong with the noble Minister's argument, which has been repeated again and again by the Government.
The Government say in relation to night work that what is wrong with this piece of legislation is that it applies to men only. We follow them a long way with that. It applies to men only, so the Government say: "Let us get rid of the legislation without looking to the problem that the legislation is about". They are considering it merely from the formal argument of discrimination, without asking whether it should apply to others. It is as though they had found a house in which only the woodwork was painted but yet some part of the woodwork, because it was discriminated against, had not been painted. Instead of saying, "Let us paint the rest of the woodwork to care for it against the weather of night work and the strains of the weather" they say, "We will rip the woodwork out. Get rid of it and get rid of the protection".
The noble Lord the Minister laughs. He thinks this is a funny matter, but it is not very funny to the baking industry workers. It is not funny to the workers organised in their trade union. The union has given notice, not that it wants trouble in this industry—indeed one could hardly find an industry where the arrangements have not improved so directly and clearly—but that there will be trouble. The employers know this as well. Why the Minister cannot produce a letter from the Employers' Federation and from the majority of employers is clear, because most employers know that it will be the cowboys who force women and men into night work who will cause the trouble. Then the Government will complain. They will say, "Look at those workers going on strike". Or, "Look at those workers demanding that the employers should protect them against competition". Do the Government believe in a flaw to competition? That is what faces them, not a unique piece of legislation. Each industry will have its problems. Each set of workers and employers will have their problems. But

605
this is a problem that faces the Government for which they have no friends among the employers, among the workers; they do not even have enough friends behind them. If they go on with this issue on baking they will be defeated and soundly trounced on that as well.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord carries himself away as though this were a great theatrical performance. This is not so. It is nonsense to say that the employers do not back the Government. The employers do back the Government. Noble Lords opposite forget that the 1954 Act came about quite soon after the war when the old methods of manufacture were still in use. There has been a great change in the baking of biscuits and also in the making of bread. There are more preservatives, there is much less need for night work than there ever was in the 1920s. As a result, because it is more expensive to have night work, the amount of night work is at the minimum that the companies can reasonably afford. The whole pattern is nothing like it was when the foundations for the 1954 Act were created. It will become more so rather than less so.
We want to look forward rather than backwards. Do not let us assume that there are a lot of cowboys trying to compete. The cowboys have all been swept away. They just do not exist in these sorts of industries in the way that they used to. Noble Lords opposite are living in the past. It is a great shame because the only future for this country is to live in the future. I trust that my noble friends will be convinced that this amendment is not going to help.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord really cannot expect to come to this House in Committee at this time of night and get away with those things. He is going back again into the dichotomy, into the contradiction, which we have had all day long on that side of the Committee. First of all, they say that nobody wants to do these things so therefore we can get rid of the protections. Then they say that if we are not allowed to get rid of the protections then nobody will be allowed to do what it is essential that they should do. You cannot have it both ways.
606
The fact is that baking is special. The Minister seems to be annoyed at the fact that these regulations are concentrated in the baking industry. That is not an accident. The workers in the baking industry and farsighted employers in the baking industry have been trying to get regulations of this kind from 1844—and they got them in 1954 and they got them from a Conservative Government.
The fact is that there is a congenital predisposition in the baking industry, particularly among the small-scale employers, to have continuous night work in appalling conditions. The large bakers, I quite agree with the noble Lord, do not need to do it because they are too efficient to need it. But the small cowboys do! We know and we have ample evidence that individual members of the master bakers, for example, who represent on the whole the small people as against the federation who, on the whole, represent the big people, have tried to get the present collective agreements reduced so that they can introduce night baking on a wide scale and they have been prevented by the present legislation.
They are the cowboys, the small boys. If this legislation is got rid of by this Bill that is what will happen. It is perfectly true that the large bakers do not need night work and they do not need the crippling conditions of night work. But the cowboys do and this Government, as always, when they have to choose, choose cowboys.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: From all sides of the Committee there have been pleas to the Government to think again. I will withdraw this amendment with the leave of the Committee this evening; but I am dissatisfied with the Government's reply. I reserve the right to bring it back and I shall be very likely to do so. I hope very much that in the meantime the Government will reconsider this in the light of what has been said this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: The Committee will not be surprised to learn that we oppose this clause standing part of the Bill. The purpose of Clause 4 is to abolish the 1954 Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act. The Government are very fond of saying that things are out of date, old-fashioned and so on. We would say that in the present context the regulations in the 1954 Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act are eminently reasonable.
What do they mean? They mean, in fact, that subject to the negotiation of exception orders—and nobody can tell you of a firm which had the agreement of its workers but which could not get an exception order; and nobody can even tell you of a group of workers who, when they were consulted in the proper way, did not accept that there was a need for an exception order—and unless you can get such an order, certain minimum restrictions are placed upon the use of night work and the extent of night work in this industry: that certain days shall not be worked and that certain bank holidays shall be allowed.
The provisions of the 1954 Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, we would say, are eminently reasonable at the present time. What the Government want to do is to abolish these provisions, and to abolish them by a side wind. Because they are asked to do something about a decision of the European Court, they drag into this Bill all sorts of provisions which are not essential, which are not necessary and which do not derive from the decisions of the European Court, because that is the way they look at legislation. Every time they are forced to introduce a piece of legislation they ask what else they can get away with in that context.
The Government tell us, and the Minister this evening has told us, that the whole history of exploitation and excessive use of night work in the baking industry is in no danger of being repeated. That is essentially what the Government are arguing: we can get rid of these regulations and nothing will follow, or very little will follow.
What is the position today, for example, in relation to hours of work and conditions in the baking industry? The Bakers' Union recently did a survey, not of the master bakers, who are the tail-end of the trade, and certainly not of the non-union employers, to whom they could not get access anyway. They did a survey of the Federation of Bakers—the best end, one might say, of the trade; that area of the large employer where the unions are most well represented. And what did they find in respect of hours of work? They found that so far as day work is concerned—I am not talking yet about night work-10 per cent. of the federated employers are working below 50 hours a week; that 30 per cent. of federated employers are working between 50 and 60 hours a week; that 40 per cent. of baking employees are working between 60 and 70 hours a week, and that 20 per cent. are working between 70 and 76 hours a week. Those are the hours of day work in the baking industry at the present time.
If you look at nights there is the same range of distribution, except that it starts at a rather lower
608
figure. That is, as we all know, and as I have said, the good end of the trade, and it is the good end of the trade with the present legislation of the 1954 Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act.
If you go outside the federation, what do you find? In the National Association of Master Bakers and in the non-unionised section of the trade you find conditions of work and hours of work which are significantly worse than anything which occurs at the federation end. A recent controversy, for example, has arisen in Barnsley in the non-unionised end of the trade, where young people are being paid £1 an hour for 50, 60 or 65 hours a week. That is the true situation in the baking industry; that is the situation which the Government say is in no danger of getting worse.
Of course, we do not suggest that the 1954 Act transformed industrial relations in the baking industry, and we certainly do not suggest that it removed excessive hours of work; but because there was the 1954 Act there was a need, if the employers wanted to have night work, to get union agreement, to get exemption orders. And, as the Minister has said and as the Government have said on many occasions, as a result of that 70 per cent. of the workers in the industry are now covered by collective agreements which in effect regulate the degree of night work.
But the union argues that the position will significantly deteriorate if the provisions of the 1954 Act are repealed. Why? First, because the pressure for early starts and for continuous shift work is growing. Why is that so? It is because the employers see this as a way of cutting staff ratios still further. And why, in turn, is this so? It is because they believe that a significant number of employees who are now employed on day work can in fact be done away with and their jobs can be linked with workers on extended night work, and therefore that staff ratios can be reduced.
As evidence of this we would pray in aid the fact I have mentioned in this Chamber before, that in 1980 there was a major dispute with the master bakers in which the master bakers wished to introduce an extended working-hour pattern and a significant use of night work. That was frustrated only when the union was able to argue that in fact the 1954 Act would not accept it and was not compatible with it.
The union believes—and it seems to me that it has significant evidence to support what it says—that the moment the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 is repealed it will be faced with demands from the National Association of Master Bakers significantly to change the present collective agreement. Secondly, we know that the average hours worked in the industry are still in the region of 50 hours per week. We know that only among merchant seamen and road transport workers are hours of work longer than that.
9.45 p.m.
We know that, given the move towards Sunday opening which the Government have introduced and will carry forward as a result of their Shops Bill, there will be a significant increase in the pressure for

609
extended overtime and night work on Saturdays. We know that, given the rise in unemployment, and the Government's legislation which significantly reduces the power of trade unions to defend their members, it is difficult, in the absence of legislation, for the Bakers' Union to believe that it can prevent a significant deterioration in working conditions in general and in hours of work in particular. That is essentially our argument against the clause.
In our amendments, we have tried to take the Government on their face value. The Government say to us that they want only to abolish the regulation, not because they are against regulation and against the protection of workers and not even directly, when we challenged them, because it is all part of the burdens on business which of course were never mentioned, as we see if we look at the Government's famous publication Lifting the Burden. No employer who was interviewed in that survey said that he was bothered about the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954, but if we press the Government on that they say, "No, it has nothing really to do with that; it is to do with the fact that we want to be fair as against men and women. As we are taking action to remove the protection of women against night work, we must take action in the baking industry to get rid of the legislation which protects men in relation to night work".
Our argument is that we have, as I say, moved amendments to test the Government. We have said to the Government, "If that is your justification, you can accept our amendment which will extend the protection so that it does not merely protect women but protects men". We know, and we knew before we put down such amendments, that the Govenment are not interested in that argument. The measure is, in fact, all part of the argument for deregulation.
I want to make two final points. First, as usual, what the Government want to do, and are suggesting in the Bill, is against all international trends. The Government are, as ever, out of step with all progressive governments. In Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Norway and France all such night work is prohibited. Always, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said, extensions of protection for workers in baking, as elsewhere, have been introduced after detailed investigation and inquiry into the consequences of night work, continued shift work and long working hours. When investigations and inquiry uncover the fact that not all workers concerned, but a significant minority, are seriously disturbed as a result of what is being done, one country after another suggests restrictions and controls; but of course this Government do not want to keep in step with progressive governments elsewhere. This Government have their ideology and they press on. Facts are merely an embarrassment.
My final point is, let us not record the fact—because it would not be true—that the trade union in the industry concerned is opposed to any form of inquiry or any form of change. Where employers need more flexibility, where employers can significantly argue that the present system of exemption orders is not what they require, the union is not saying—and certainly we are not saying—that there is not a case for change, flexibility and modification. What we are
610
saying is that there is no case at this moment for this kind of sweeping, totally unresearched, uninvestigated, ideological commitment to the abolition of all restrictions.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not reply at the same length as the noble Lord in introducing his remarks. The fact of the matter is that Clause 4 of the Bill repeals the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. The Act, as the noble Lord well knows, covers the manufacture of all bread and flour confectionery, but excludes biscuits. Women are excluded from the Act, being generally prohibited from night work by the factories legislation at which we have already looked under Clause 3.
The essence of the objection to the noble Lord's point of view is this. If this Act remains on the statute book while the restrictions on women's hours are repealed, a major anomaly will result. As I have already indicated to your Lordships, the Act would prevent men working in night bakeries, for which no exemption had been granted by the Secretary of State under the Act, while women's employment would be entirely unregulated. I cannot think that that is what the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me, therefore, that this clause ought to remain in the Bill.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Consequential amendment, repeals and saving]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 27, I should remind the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 28.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Protection of existing conditions) below")
The noble Lord said: This is one of the many amendments to which I spoke in relation to Amendment No. 10, which was passed by the Committee. Therefore, I wish formally to move Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Code of Practice.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue, or require any body nominated by him (known for the purposes of this section as the "nominated body") to issue, a Code or Codes of Practice containing practical guidance in respect of hours of work for men and women for either or both of the following purposes—

(a) to ensure that the needs of workers with domestic and family responsibilities are accommodated;

(b) to ensure minimum standards of health, safety and welfare.

(2) When the Secretary of State or the nominated body propose to issue a Code of Practice they shall prepare and publish a draft of that Code, shall consider any representation made to them about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
(3) In the course of preparing any draft Code of Practice for publication under subsection (2) the Secretary of State or the nominated body shall consult with—

(a) such organisations or associations of organisations representative of employers or of workers; and

(b) such other organisations or bodies, as appears to them to be appropriate.

(4) Where the Secretary of State has nominated a body to issue a Code of Practice and that body determines to proceed with the draft, it shall transmit the draft to the Secretary of State for Employment who shall: —

(a) if he approves of it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament; and

(b) if he does not approve it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.

(5) If, within the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of a draft Code of Practice is laid before each House of Parliament, or, if such copies are laid on different days, with the later of the two days, either House so resolves, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of a new draft.
(6) In reckoning the period of 40 days referred to in subsection (5), no account shall be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.
(7) If no such resolution is passed as is referred to in subsection (5), the Code shall be issued in the form of the draft and the Code shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(8) Without prejudice to section 6(3) an order under subsection (7) may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the Code of Practice thereby brought into operation.
(9) The whole or any part of the Code of Practice issued under this section may be revised and such revised Code issued and subsections (2) to (8) shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised Code as they apply to the first issue of the Code.
(10) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a Code of Practice shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings; but in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal any Code of Practice issued under this section shall be admissible in evidence, and if any provision of such Code appears to the tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.")
The noble Baroness said: Similarly to the last amendment, the code of practice was suggested by the EOC in 1979 when suggesting a repeal of the Factories Act to equalise conditions of work between men and women. They felt that the protection of both sexes was sensible and that the preparation of a code of practice, to be approved by Parliament, would ensure that employers paid due regard to the health and welfare of their employees in the changed circumstances after the repeal of the Act. I refer to such matters as welfare provisions, meal breaks, transport to and from work in the escalating climate of violence in our country today—and this would be true for men as well as for women—health and safety provisions and provision for family responsibilities, including the question of child care. We mentioned a nominating body and we had in mind, possibly, ACAS as that body.
The code of practice that we are suggesting would be a longer term measure, just as the Equal Opportunities Commission's code of practice was a longer term measure after the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act. It would therefore give time for consultation with the parties concerned, who are closely involved with the actual facts and conditions of work for men and women, and would allow for proper protection of conditions of work for both sexes. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support the noble Baroness in this amendment. It is in line with what I have been saying in relation to the various debates we have had during the course of the day.
The important part of the amendment is to be found in subsection (1)(a) and (b):

(a) "to ensure that the needs of workers with domestic and family responsibilities are accommodated;

(b) to ensure minimum standards of health, safety and welfare".

It is important in the context of this amendment to emphasise that it refers to the needs of workers—both men and women—with domestic and family responsibilities. This is in line with the growing move—not perhaps an avalanche—for men to take much greater responsibility within the family for caring for children and perhaps for elderly people, relatives and so on who are in need of constant attention. Therefore I hope that we shall treat this part of the amendment as being of great importance.
The amendment refers to,
"minimum standards of health, safety and welfare".
It is recognised that certainly during the course of night work we do not have operating in factories the same standards of welfare as operate during the daytime. There are not the same facilities. Very often there are not the same welfare facilities. The same managerial and personnel facilities are not available for night workers. This needs to be taken care of.
I noticed that in moving the amendment the noble Baroness referred to the possibility of ACAS being the nominating body which would be responsible for the code of practice. I should have hoped that the Health and Safety Commission would be considered as a suitable body because codes of practice under the health and safety legislation have much more force in the tribunals than other codes of practice. However, that is a detail; and if the Minister were favourably disposed to the amendment it could be looked at.
The Minister will no doubt say in response, as he seems to have been saying all day, that this amendment is unnecessary and that we want to remove from industry restrictions that impede individual decision making and impede the development of collective agreements. But it is important that, having removed, if we do remove, the protection from women workers, we signify as a Parliament that this does not mean that all protection and all concern for workers is removed. Good employers probably will not be in need of a code of practice, but it is the not-so-good employers and the employees of those companies about whom we are concerned. Therefore, although a code of practice would apply to all the industries at present covered by the Factories Act, there would be no need for those setting good standards to be concerned about a code of practice. It would hit those who needed to raise their standards.
The question has been asked during the course of the debates today: why should we be particularly concerned about factory workers? After all there are other workers who have to work at night and do not have protection. That is quite true. Certainly within the nursing profession there is a growing concern about the welfare and safety of night workers. It is

613
possible that something will have to be done in that respect to safeguard the interests of medical workers.
10 p.m.
Again, there is special concern that we should bear in mind in relation to factory workers. Transport is always a problem for women. It is usually women who do not have access to the family car. Very often, professional workers who might be called upon to work at night do have access to a car, whereas the majority of women working in factories are most unlikely to have such access. They are the one group among women that is most unlikely even to be drivers, let alone to have access to the family car.
Matters of that kind need careful attention, not only by your Lordships but also by whoever will be responsible for drafting a code of practice. I hope that the amendment will receive support from all sides of the Committee.
Baroness Seear: While I very much support the idea behind the code of practice, I see a problem in connection with a point upon which I should very much like the Minister to elucidate. As I understand it, codes of practice are related to legislation. They are interpretative of legislation. As we know, they do not have the force of law but they are interpretative of legislation. If the amendments that have been passed this evening are accepted and remain in the legislation, then the code will of course be interpretative of the law including those amendments. But since the Government are set to remove the fat of the legislation, I fail to see to what legislation the code of practice will relate. I know of no precedent in which there is a code of practice not related to any substantial legislation. Can the Minister clarify that point?
Baroness Turner of Camden: As far as this amendment is concerned, we on this side of the Committee find it admirable—at least in sentiment, although I agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has raised a point that requires clarification. We regard the code of practice as a good idea, for the simple reason that codes of practice are, as has been my experience, of considerable value to negotiators. Indeed, throughout the debate the noble Lord opposite has often made reference to the desirability of collective bargaining and to the resolving of issues by collective bargaining rather than through legislation. My experience is that if there are codes of practice available to negotiators on both sides of industry—to people who want to do the right thing and who require some guidance—then those codes of practice can provide great support.
I was glad to learn from the Minister earlier today that he has taken seriously the comments of the TUC regarding dangers to women who have to be out at night because of night work, and so on, and because of the urban problems of which we are all aware. As several other speakers have said, a code will at least enable the Government to take on board some of the problems that exist and to consider them in the light of the draft code. Moreover, and as always with codes of practice, there is provision for consultation with both sides of industry. That is also very important; and it involves both Houses of Parliament, who have to
614
approve the details of the code, as has been done previously.
Although there may be some problems yet to be resolved on the whole question of the code and the Bill as it stands as a result of our amendments, in principle we support the idea of codes of practice as a guide to both sides of industry. I hope that the Minister will not say that we do not need to put anything into the statute because matters can be resolved by collective bargaining. What will happen if the employer says, no? Generally speaking, unions do not want to come out on strike and exert pressure, and if we may rely upon codes of practice in our negotiations, then it may help industrial relations. In general, therefore, we support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: What we propose in Clause 3 of this Bill is the removal of restrictions on the hours of work of women employed in manual work in factories because they are discriminatory and, we believe, outdated and an unnecessary burden on employers and the Health and Safety Executive. What is proposed in this amendment is that these limited restrictions should be replaced with a code of practice which will provide guidance on the hours of work for all employees.
What evidence do we have that this is necessary? Available evidence suggests that during recent years there has been a general downward trend in the length of the basic working week and there will be many men and women who would not welcome restrictions—even in the form of well-meaning guidance—on their hours of work and, therefore, their earnings potential. Employers and employees require flexibility to decide in the light of their particular circumstances the work pattern which best suits them.
The EOC has powers to issue codes of practice giving guidance on the elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment. This it has already done in a code of practice issued last year. Any additional code giving guidance solely on one employment condition—namely, hours of work—would surely rest uneasily with the existing code. Might an employer not be in some difficulty if he is asked to bear in mind two separate codes of practice dealing with employment issues and possibly not issued by the same body?
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 already contains provisions which allow the Health and Safety Commission to prepare and issue approved codes of practice or general or specific guidance on health and safety standards, and it would clearly be unnecessary, misleading and confusing to give some other body power to issue a code of practice on hours of work. I am sure that the commission would consider very carefully any representations made to it about the need for a code or guidance on minimum standards of health, safety and welfare for night workers. In addition, Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act gives the Health and Safety Executive powers to ensure that minimum standards of health and safety generally are being observed and this would include hours of women and of workers generally. I really fail to see the necessity for this amendment which enables the creation of yet another code of practice, and urge that this amendment should be rejected.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I am interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister said about the Health and Safety Executive in suggesting that ACAS was the nominating body. Obviously the Equal Opportunities Commission was very cognisant of the fact that the Health and Safety Executive had jurisdiction in this area. That might therefore be the answer.
We find with our own code of practice that it is of value to people. A great many people have read it. It has been a best seller from the Stationery Office. There have been seminars. A great deal of work is being done. It is something which helps both sides of industry to see where discrimination lies. Very often discrimination lies in ignorance. Therefore, the code of practice we have in mind is one which would give practical guidance, taking into account the opinions of both sides of industry which are involved in the work place and therefore will know the practices and what is possible and what is not possible.
Therefore, we are not suggesting some impractical guidance; it is practical guidance that we want to see. I will look at the question of the Health and Safety Executive and I reserve my position on the matter of a code of practice; but at this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
("Notes for Guidance.
. Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it may be necessary to clarify the effect of this Act on collective agreements he shall issue notes for guidance to employers and organisations of workers.")
The noble Baroness said: The Government are removing the jurisdiction of the Central Arbitration Committee over collective agreements in connection with the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act. The Government rely on the power of individuals to bring cases before industrial tribunals. We believe that this individual consideration of collective agreements could lead to inconsistencies which would, in turn, lead to increased litigation and subsequent confusion for individual employees, trade unions and employers which would be to nobody's benefit.
We suggested alternatives, either utilising the existing Central Arbitration Committee procedure, or modifying it, or using the Employment Appeal Tribunal as a court of first instance. None of those suggestions has been incorporated in the Bill, and so I am putting this amendment which would give the Secretary of State the power to clarify the situation on collective agreements by issuing notes of guidance to employers and organisations of workers. Those might include advice that they should renegotiate any existing collective agreements affected by the Act as soon as possible so as to remove those sections made void as a result, so that no one in the future could have the mistaken impression that they still carried weight. That would remove unnecessary confusion.
Secondly, it would allow the Secretary of State to advise employers or organisations of workers to submit voluntarily to the Central Arbitration Committee any collective agreements about which
616
there was uncertainty on the method of bringing them within the new law. I understand that the Central Arbitration Committee is accustomed to carrying out voluntary arbitration and indeed has done so on nearly 30 occasions during the past three years. That could be of great assistance in resolving consequential difficulties in collective agreements as a result of the Act and it could relieve many individuals of the difficult responsibility of taking the agreements separately to industrial tribunals which may make individual, contradictory findings. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: We propose to support the amendment, although we think it is very weak compared with the one that we moved earlier which would have provided a proper system of enforcement of collective agreements. We should have preferred a system whereby, if the parties to an agreement felt that it was inadequate, they could take it before a suitable body, argue it out and have a decision and guidance at the end. But if this is the best that can be done at this late stage, we are prepared to support it. I repeat that it seems a very weak provision to us. It is simply that it is better than having absolutely nothing. There ought to be a suitable method of enforcement.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I think that this amendment is rather taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is entirely usual practice for departments to issue guidance on new legislation. The Department of Employment invariably issues free leaflets and booklets which are widely available through Jobcentres, unemployment benefit offices and small firms centres round the country. There is every intention to issue guidance on the changes to the Sex Discrimination Act contained in the Bill before us now, including, of course, the changes affecting collective agreements. The Committee may recall that my noble friend the Secretary of State at the Second Reading of this Bill undertook to ensure that simplified explanatory guidance would be made available to help small firms come to grips with their new obligations when the Bill comes into force. I can also assure my noble friend that the Equal Opportunities Commission will be given the chance to make its usual constructive comments on the new explanatory material.
My noble friend was quite right, if I may say so, to raise this important issue, but I hope she will agree that it is totally unnecessary to require my noble friend the Secretary of State by law to do what he is certainly going to do anyway. In the light of this, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: Do I take it that my noble friend is giving an undertaking that the notes of guidance will be issued? I know that notes of guidance are normally issued by the Department of Employment.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes. I assure my noble friend that we intend to follow the normal practice in this case.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I do not think that that is what the noble Baroness asked. Perhaps I did not hear her correctly. I think that she asked whether

617
notes of guidance would be issued in the terms of the amendment; that is, to clarify the effect of the Act on collective agreements, which presumably means particular and specific collective agreements or agreements of a particular kind.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear earlier. I said that that point would be covered.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that undertaking, and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of existing conditions.
.— (1) This section applies to employees who at the date of commencement of this Act are subject to restrictions in respect of their hours of work or other working conditions imposed by virtue of any of the provisions to which section 3, 4 or 5(2) above apply (in this section called "protected conditions").
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of any of the said provisions, the protected conditions shall continue to constitute conditions of employment under or in accordance with which such an employee is required and entitled to work save in so far as that employee agrees otherwise in writing.
(3) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be unfair for the purposes of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that—

(a) the employee refused, or proposed to refuse, to agree to any variation in the protected conditions when they constituted conditions of employment by reason of subsection (2) above; or

(b) the employer dismissed the employee in order to engage another employee on terms and conditions of employment which did not or would not include the protected conditions.").

The noble Lord said: This is the last of many amendments to which I spoke in moving Amendment No. 10 which, as the Committee may remember, was passed. It is part of a general package of amendments. I move it formally at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  NORFOLK BROADS: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  NORFOLK BROADS: PROPOSED LEGISLATION
  KENNECOTT CONSORTIUM: LICENCE TO EXPLORE SEA BED
  KENNECOTT CONSORTIUM: LICENCE TO EXPLORE SEA BED