Sitting of 8 May 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    HARROGATE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.

    SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 15 May.

    MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 15 May.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 15 May.

    HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 15 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Incomes
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current trend in levels of income in the agricultural sector.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Farming income fell by 43 per cent. in 1985 compared with 1984, when it rose by 35 per cent. compared with 1983. The weather plays a large part in these figures. However, the price fixing will help our producers to sustain returns overall. Our industry, which is in surplus, faces difficult adjustments at this time.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that the underlying trend in these figures is downward and ever more downward? Given the essential importance of agriculture and the agriculture-related sectors in rural areas such as the Highlands of Scotland, but particularly in two other parliamentary constituencies that I can think of today, what will the Minister do to arrest the underlying essential trend, which I fear will lead in the Highlands to another form of Highland clearance if nothing is done to reverse the trend?
    Mr. Jopling: The Government share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about agriculture and its economic prospects. The hon. Gentleman, typically for his party, is very good at stating the problems, but is short on providing solutions to them. The alliance is very good at claiming that incomes are going down, but it is very bad at telling us how it would deal with huge surpluses such as exist in agriculture. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's points about the Highlands, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a degree of generosity, might draw attention to the considerable improvements that we made last year in the subsidies for less-favoured areas.
    Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Members of Opposition parties to lament the drop in farmers' incomes when they are planning to rate agricultural land?
    Mr. Jopling: We all know that. My hon. Friend should not accuse the hon Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) of that, as it is only the urban Members of those parties who tell us that they will rate agricultural land. The rural Members are understandably rather quiet about it.
    Dr. Godman: Given the importance of beet and beet sugar to agriculture, is it not right and proper that any bid, from whatever source, for the acquisition of the British Sugar Corporation should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Jopling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that these are matters not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Will not the Government's record on lowering interest rates and inflation, together with the

    239
    reduction in the cost of commodities that farmers buy, have a marked effect in helping to sustain farmers' net incomes?
    Mr. Jopling: That is true, although I think that my hon. Friend has probably left out of his accurate list the fact that the changes in the green pound will also greatly help farmers.
    Mr. John: As the right hon. Gentleman wants to be specific in his solutions, is this not the last year in which delays should be experienced in the compensatory allowance payments? Does he accept that some hill farmers are still awaiting their payments, and that that is quite unprecedented? Will he remedy the situation?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should know that we are making every effort to make the payments as quickly as possible. He will also remember that earlier in the year we took the trouble to ensure that advance payments were made, particularly to some in the less-favoured areas. That, of course, was very welcome.

    Statutory Services (Charges)
    Mr. Colvinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated revenue for 1986–87 from charges to farmers for statutory services; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Estimated receipts for all activities of my Department are published in the Supply Estimates 1986–87, class IV, but our data do not distinguish receipts from charges to farmers, whether direct or indirect, from charges to other persons and organisations.
    Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. When will the charges to nursery growers for growing season inspections be announced? The delay is causing considerable difficulty to nurserymen such as Hilliers in my constituency, who are heavily dependent on the export trade. If the charges are too swingeing there will be minimum export orders, which will only hand business to our continental competitors. Why cannot nurserymen such as Hilliers be licensed to carry out their own inspections, just as the seed trade does?
    Mrs. Fenner: My attention has not been drawn to any particular difficulties, but we hope to circulate the provisional proposals to trade and producer interests within the next few weeks. On the question of licensing, the EEC directive requires Government certification, so inspection must be done by the Government.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Give me a break.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: He has never seen a cow.
    Mr. Banks: Yes, I have. There are plenty on Wanstead Flats. Will the Minister consider charging farmers the storage costs of their overproduction which results in beef and butter mountains? We have beef and butter mountains in my constituency of Newham, North-West. Why do the Government refuse to give me the address of those mountains? Are they embarrassed or afraid of food riots in Stratford?
    Mrs. Fenner: There is commercial confidentiality about giving the names of storage depots, and any payment for storage is part of the general EEC instruction.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many farmers in the Weald of Sussex, and particularly dairy farmers, resent the introduction of charges for statutory duties? I find it extraordinary that my hon. Friend cannot say how much the Exchequer saves by introducing such charges. If the Ministry cannot say how much is being saved, why introduce the charges in the first place?
    Mrs. Fenner: We proposed the charges because there is an identifiable and substantial benefit to customers in cases where we now charge, or propose to charge. A precise estimate of the savings is difficult, because in some of the areas in which charges will be made we do not yet know the scale of demand for the service. Consequently, we cannot estimate the income.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable feeling in the industry that statutory functions carried out in the public interest should be funded by the Government? Is she aware that many farmers are worried that the Minister will thrust on the industry the £2 million per annum cost of implementing the milk and dairy regulations? Furthermore, is she aware that there is considerable concern in the already hard-pressed dairy sector of the industry?
    Mrs. Fenner: Assertions that statutory work is solely for the public good are wrong. Where there is private benefit, we expect the recipient to pay. The high quality and reputation of the products that are involved in the milk and dairy regulations work help to maintain consumption and thus benefit the producers' returns.
    Mr. Livsey: In view of the statutory obligations that the Ministry has for testing, will the Minister comment on the contamination of milk in becquerels per litre in the high rainfall areas of Britain and compare them with those levels found in Holland, where the cows have been housed?
    Mrs. Fenner: The levels in Holland are a matter for testing in that country. I can only reassure the hon. Gentleman that we tested in many spots in the entire United Kingdom. The figures that we announced are accurate. He will have seen that although the National Radiological Protection Board had marginally different figures, it had tested at fewer points than we had.

    Cereals
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the final decision on cereal prices taken by the European Economic Community Council for 1985–86; and if the EEC Commission's proposal on prices for 1986–87 is based on the previous year's figure as adopted by the Council, or as operated by the Commission.
    Mr. Jopling: The Council of Ministers took no decisions on cereals support prices for 1985–86. Price levels for 1986–87 were set by the Council at its meeting of 21 to 25 April and did not depend on those which the Commission applied in 1985–86.
    Mr. Deakins: I am grateful to the Minister for the latter information. Does he accept that what happened in the

    241
    price negotiations last year, when the Commission overruled a West German veto on cereal price reductions, shows the fragility of the Luxembourg compromise and contradicts the assurances given to the House by the Foreign Secretary that the Single European Act posed no threat to the Luxembourg compromise?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should recall that last year the Commission was obliged to take measures to maintain the smooth running of the cereals market. It is not helpful to quibble about this pragmatic approach in the circumstances of last year's deadlock. This year's decisions have been taken clearly by the Council without any threats of the Luxembourg compromise.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent discussions in Europe on agricultural prices have been disappointing? We shall not solve the basic problem of surplus production in Europe by tinkering with prices. We must get our European partners to consider a far more fundamental reform of the CAP.
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is not as optimistic as he might be about the effects of the recent price-fixing. It constitutes a considerable reduction in prices in the cereals sector. I shall be surprised if it does not have some effect at the margins. I agree with my hon. Friend that one is unlikely to deal with the cereals problem by price policy alone. That is why, as he knows, I have lately been discussing—I have also mentioned it to the House—the prospects of a policy of set-aside, which could help us to deal with the growing surpluses.
    Mr. John: Why, then, did the Ministry give evidence to the Select Committee, whose report was issued this week, that it was depending on prices alone to counter and control the cereals surplus? If the Minister is so confident that it will work at the margins, why will he not give us an estimate of the amount by which cereal production will be cut as a result of the price agreement?
    Mr. Jopling: It is impossible to predict the effect on production, because the weather plays such an important part. I guess that the hon. Gentleman has read carefully what I have said during the past few months and that he knows that I have said that I believe we shall solve the problem of cereal surpluses only with a package of measures, of which price restraint should be a front-running member.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that argument is convincing nobody? Indeed, I doubt whether he is convincing himself. What possible sense can there be in reducing prices, which will encourage every farmer in Europe to produce more cereals, while talking about a package of set-aside? Could he concentrate his mind on this subject and realise that only a mandatory set-aside throughout the Community and other surplus producing areas of the world will solve the problem?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend has advanced arguments that are familiar to the House. He will know that a mandatory set-aside is not very far removed from quotas and the House has largely agreed, although I know that my hon. Friend does not wholly agree, that it would be bad for Britain if we had quotas to deal with the cereals problem. I believe that a policy of a voluntary set-aside could sit very well with a policy of price discipline on the lines that we have succeeded in negotiating at the most recent price fixing.

    Animals (Ritual Slaughter)
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to announce their conclusions on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on July 1985 on ritual slaughter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Government are giving careful consideration to the Council's report and to the many comments which have been received on it from interested parties. The response will be issued as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that toleration of the rights of religious minorities is a mark of a civilised society, but that that toleration cannot be absolute? We now have a constructive report which was published as long ago as July 1985. Does she agree that, if people knew about ritual slaughter, the vast majority would find it abhorrent? Does she further agree that it is a problem which the Government will have to tackle sooner rather than later?
    Mrs. Fenner: I assure my hon. Friend that I am mindful of the fact that the report is extremely important. We have received many comments and observations from a wide range of interested persons. We consult widely. I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving the matter the deepest consideration. We will take a decision and make our report just as soon as possible.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be difficult to find many veterinarians in the country who would support this abhorrent practice? Does she further agree that agriculture has enough enemies without it being associated in the slightest with pandering to this barbaric practice?
    Mrs. Fenner: The issue has been debated in Parliament several times. The prevailing view has been that the religious requirements of the Jewish and Moslem communities should be respected in the absence of conclusive evidence that animals killed by religious methods suffer more than stunned animals. We now have this very important report. In view of decisions made by Parliament over many years, we recognise how important it is.

    Sheep
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the sheep industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The sheep sector is relatively profitable and I consider that producers should remain confident. We derive considerable benefits from the EC sheepmeat regime, and these will continue following the recent CAP price settlement.
    Mr. Carlile: Is the Minister aware that, for sheep farmers in Wales, the fodder compensation scheme has failed to mitigate the consequences of last year's disastrous summer? Is he further aware that many fair-minded farmers feel that it has discriminated unfairly against them when they see their neighbours receiving compensation in precisely the same circumstances? Does he agree that the attitude of some banks, which charge many farmers as much as 3 per cent. above the base rate, is doing great damage to the sheep industry?
    Mr. Gummer: It is true that if one tries to provide specific help for those in particular need one has to draw lines, and that means that people on the wrong side of the line find it unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. I do not think that it could have been done more fairly. I know he will accept that it is better to try to give the aid where it is needed than to provide blanket aid across the country. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment on the banks, one cannot comment on a general statement of that kind. In many cases the banks have been extremely helpful.
    Mr. McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend should be aware that there is considerable disquiet in the sheep sector of the industry at the possibility that, if there are quotas on cereals and producers go out of production, they may well move into the sheep sector, causing considerable problems there. In the light of the excellent result achieved by my right hon. Friend in the EEC last week, despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said—the sheep sector welcomed the achievement—we do not want to see over-production in the sheep sector as in the cereal sector.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, and that is one of the reasons why the concept of quotas has its major disadvantages. We have to remind the House that in the price settlement we achieved the things that we sought. We got rid of the discriminatory proposals on flock sizes and stopped the proposed merger of Northern Ireland with the Republic into one region. As a result of the changes in the MCAs we have given an increase in the basic sheepmeat price. That means that there is considerable benefit for that part of the industry.
    Sir Paul Hawkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the bargain he reached in Brussels over the sheepmeat regime. Will he please draw attention to the fact that the sheepmeat industry is probably one of the most profitable farming sectors at present?
    Mr. Gummer: The sheepmeat industry provides a real reason for confidence in the future for those working in it. The industry faces a number of problems and we have to keep that closely in mind. However, I do not think that the industry is helped by the constant doom which we hear from the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To what extent have the sheep rearing higher land areas of the United Kingdom been affected by the fallout from Chernobyl? When the NRPB said today that the levels of fallout were 100 times higher at the weekend than today, where was it referring to? We were never given those figures. That may not be a departmental responsibility of the Minister, but, in so far as he has responsibility for agriculture, especially the sheep industry, will he look at that matter?
    Mr. Gummer: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the Department of the Environment, and I shall see that his points are raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there are two ways in which we do no service to the public in this matter. The first is to cover up what has happened, as the Russians did, and the other is to spread alarm and despondency when it is entirely unnecessary.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about permitted variations to the proposed standard milk quota.
    Mr. Jopling: None other than those raised by hon. Members during the debate on the Agriculture Bill on 17 April. We have however consulted the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union about this issue. We shall be tabling amendments in another place to take account of the comments made. These amendments allow greater flexibility for arbitrators to depart from the standard yield to take account of individual circumstances. Those moves should be especially helpful to farmers on marginal land.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many farmers on difficult land will find it difficult to reach yields of the standard quota? Therefore, will he be sympathetic to representations made on their behalf, even if they depart from the standard quota by less than the 20 per cent. mentioned in the Bill?
    Mr. Jopling: I am glad to be able to say that it is our intention to remove that 20 per cent. restriction so that farmers, especially on more marginal land, can make better use of the arrangements. The impact of that will be to leave a good deal more discretion to the arbitrators.
    Mr. John: Do the Government intend to introduce any other amendments to the new clause in another place?
    Mr. Jopling: This is the most important amendment that we have decided to make, and we shall make any other amendments that we believe to be right in the light of circumstances.

    Livestock (Profitability)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the level of profitability in the livestock sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: The whole of the livestock sector will benefit from the recent agreement on CAP prices, in particular as a result of the devaluation of the green pound, which favours livestock as compared with the arable sector. Further, the reduction in cereal prices should be of benefit to the livestock sector as well.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many milk producers have benefited from the reduction in feed costs and have enjoyed a consequent increase in profitability? Does he accept that this is a one-off exercise and that something must be done about milk prices if dairy farmers are to enjoy continued profitability in the future?
    Mr. Jopling: I should point out to my hon. Friend that the devaluation of the green pound will raise the price level for milk by around 2·75 per cent. At the same time, he will remember that the cereal price package will reduce feed costs. In fact, for the cereal sector, the package should cut the price of feed grains by about 4 per cent. Those two factors should help dairy farmers quite considerably.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister draw the attention of his colleagues at the Scottish Office to the problem facing the livestock sector in the north of Scotland and in the

    245
    Highlands and Islands, especially as we are still seeing the feed-through effects of last year's very bad weather conditions, which have resulted in higher feed prices to the livestock sector, and which are now being accelerated through the agricultural economy to other aspects? If the Minister were to look constructively at other ways of providing additional support to that welcome help which the Government provided last year, we would be extremely grateful.
    Mr. Jopling: My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. He has acknowledged the way in which the Government moved to help last autumn because of the very had weather, in addition to the adjustment that we made to the grants for the less-favoured areas.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is there not a certain lack of Conservative ideology in continuing a regime that the Government do not apply to other industries—that of maintaining profitability by having enormous unsaleable mountains and by selling some of the surplus to the Soviet Union at 15p a pound? Will my right hon. Friend explain to my constituents the logic of paying massive sums to dairy farmers to get them out of milk so that they can switch the land to livestock production?
    Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend—and he has heard me say so on many occasions—that the CAP has suffered over the years, because while in general its principles are right, it has been extremely badly managed by the application of too generous price increases. That has caused the surpluses to build up. However, the principles of the CAP are right. It was right to switch from a policy of maintaining agricultural incomes by deficiency payments and guaranteed prices to a system of support through import levies. Only the other day I looked at some of my hon. Friend's election addresses and noticed that there was nothing in them that argued against that switch in basic policy.

    Organic Farming
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards organic farming.
    Mrs. Fenner: My Department takes an interest in all farming systems, including what has become known as organic farming, with the objective of helping farmers to make the fullest possible use of the resources available to them according to the economic circumstances and to meet market requirements. Provided that those farming organically continue to pay attention to the market for their products, I believe that this form of production will develop to meet a specialised retail demand.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Minister accept that, for all practical purposes, the Government give no assistance for research into, or development of, systems of organic farming? Does she not accept that there are very good reasons, on grounds of both personal and environmental health, for encouraging these practices, and that if the Government were to reverse their policies and encourage those systems they it would go some way towards introducing a more extensive form of farming and reducing surpluses?
    Mrs. Fenner: The first part of the hon. Member's assertion is untrue. MAFF began funding a three-year project at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1985, designed to obtain, on a whole-farm basis, information on nitrogen balance and the nitrogen cycle in organic farming systems. Work is planned and monitored with the assistance of a steering group which includes senior representatives of the organic farming sector. ADAS is also carrying out a three-year study, monitoring pests and diseases in organically grown crops on a commercial farm in Wiltshire.
    Sir John Wells: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance to those who are anxious about the fact that there are no satisfactory definitions in organic farming? Consumers do not know how organic "organic" is. It would be helpful if there were some definitions.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Community intends to take action to promote organic farming by introducing a legislative framework that will ensure free movement for organic produce—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give the answer, he might find out that I am interested in protecting the consumers' interests. The Commission is to make proposals for satisfactory guarantees to consumers through proper labelling.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Lady, in her ususal straighforward way, tell organic farmers whether the Government have any proposals to assist with the marketing of organic produce? Will she also tell us whether she is satisfied with the statutory protection given to organic farmers against those who label their goods falsely as organic when they are not organic?
    Mrs. Fenner: I have just answered the last part of the hon. and learned Member's question. The Commission and Europe are looking at the protection of the consumer in respect of the labelling of organic produce. As regards the promotion of marketing, I have no doubt that they will support Food from Britain, the organisation which markets both agricultural and horticultural produce.
    Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should see organic farming in proportion? At the moment we are about 80 per cent, self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs. If there were a big move to organic farming, there would be a massive shortfall of temperate foodstuffs that we could produce in this country.
    Mrs. Fenner: I believe that there is likely to be an increasing demand for organically grown produce, but, although organic farming methods have attractions for some producers, they are unlikely to be the total answer for British agriculture generally.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: I am satisfied that, with the common fisheries policy now firmly in place within an enlarged Community, confidence is returning to the fishing industry. The value of catches continues to increase year by year, and investment in construction and modernisation of fishing vessels appears to be running at a very healthy level.
    Mr. Wallace: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Does he recall that at Question Time during the latter part of 1985 he indicated to me that before the end of the year he would make a statement on the future of the licensing system for the fishing of pelagic species? That statement has not yet appeared. Can he say when he expects it to appear? Will he accept that as long as there is delay there must be uncertainty in the industry and some suspicion about what is going on with regard to further licensing of freezer trawlers?
    Mr. Gummer: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any suspicions in that sense are unfounded. The only suspicion that people ought to have is that we are trying to come to a proper decision in the proper time.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister in a position to make a statement on the story that has been running in newspapers for the last few days to the effect that there is a plan to divide the fishing grounds into areas, which would be allocated to individual vessels? That is regarded as a horrific suggestion in the fishing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Gummer: If the right hon. Gentleman were to think for a moment about the possibility of doing that, he would understand that it is unlikely. There is no plan for an overall change of the present system.
    Dr. Godman: Is the Minister satisfied with the performance of the Sea Fish Industry Authority in the promotion and marketing of the product?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that one is never wholly satisfied with any organisation that seeks to market anything. I am keen on the promotion of fish, a thoroughly good product which should be very widely eaten and which provides extremely good value for money. The SFIA is doing a good job and has increasingly proved that to the industry. It now has considerable support in the industry for the operation it is carrying out in circumstances that are not at all easy, particularly since herring was off the menu for so long and now has come back on it more widely.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the award last week of the FEOGA grants to the fishing industry. The Scottish fishing industry is extremely grateful for the £2 million which was granted to it by FEOGA last week. In my constituency, 17 projects will benefit by £1·2 million. Long may my right hon. Friend continue to work as hard for the fishing industry in Scotland as he has done since he took office.
    Mr. Gummer: It is not I who should be congratulated, but my hon. Friend, on the enterprise of his constituents. I point out to him that the common fisheries policy, which is producing such dividends to the United Kingdom, was wholly opposed by the Labour party, which thought that it would lead to the outrageous destruction of British fishing interests. In fact, we have seen that it is one of the most progressive and sensible policies that we have entered into for many years.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that there are still a substantial number of United Kingdom quotas which are not being taken up? Will he tell the House what specific steps he will take to encourage fishermen, especially English and Welsh fishermen, to exploit those quotas? Is he aware that if they are not taken up they will be exploited by other countries, which will make negotiations on next year's quotas much more difficult?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that we should fish to our quotas, except that some of the quotas are there for historic reasons but have not been able to be fished because the fish have not been there. We are concerned about that, because we want realistic quotas in every case. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should fish to our quotas. In the end it is the industry which must respond to that, and not the Government who must force it to do so. I encourage the industry in all cases that I can.

    Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: My right hon. Friend last met the president of the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance on 25 October when he addressed the annual luncheon of the alliance on a wide range of issues of concern to the confectionery industry.
    Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Will she take on board the need to stop the dumping of non-EEC confectionery, which is undermining employment in this country because bags of sugar confectionery are being sold into the wholesale trade at 9p a bag to retail at 20p, as opposed to double that price for United Kingdom confectionery?
    Mrs. Fenner: There are well-established rules which govern international trade. Imports from third countries are subject to import duties. Any substantiated evidence of unfair competition will be urgently examined. I trust that my hon. Friend will bring it before my Department.

    Hill Farming
    Mr. Livseyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of hill farming; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: The state of hill farming is considered every year in the context of the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. As a result of last year's review, hill livestock compensatory amounts were increased by an average of 11 per cent. This was in addition to the special help, including exceptional weather aid payments, offered to farmers in many hill areas most adversely affected by last year's bad weather. Higher rates of capital grant and grants for on-farm diversification are also available in the less-favoured areas to compensate for the special hardship which farmers face there.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister comment on the fact that some farmers in upland areas are on family income supplement, which is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? What will the Government do about it?
    Mrs. Fenner: As my right hon. Friend pointed out, last year some payments were made in advance to help with that. The 11 per cent. increase above the amount which was paid out in 1985 will have benefited some 60,000 to 65,000 producers.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Freesonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Freeson: Has the Prime Minister seen today's report of the Congressional decision to refuse endorsements of the latest proposals for arms exports to a middle east country? Does she sympathise with that rejection? Will she participate in trying to cut the obscene pouring of billions of pounds' worth of offensive arms equipment into middle east countries, causing political instability and the threat and risk of further wars in that area?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that is not a matter for me. He will also be aware of our decision at the Tokyo summit not to export arms to Libya.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to consider the worrying fall in the number of Americans planning to visit the United Kingdom since the Libyan bombing? As that is completely unjustified, is she aware of any plans to invite the United States' First Lady to the royal wedding, since an early invitation followed by an early acceptance may well go some way towards reversing that trend?
    The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me, but I am well aware of the reports of the reduction in the number of tourists from America coming to the United Kingdom, and I have already had something to say about it. They should continue to come. This is a marvellous country to visit, it is extremely safe, and there is a great deal going on that they will wish to see this summer.
    Mr. Cartwright: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the Privileges Committee recommendation that Mr. Richard Evans of The Times be suspended from the Lobby for six months for publishing a leaked report from the Environment Select Committee? Does she not think it ironic that Select Committees, set up to throw light on the workings of Government Departments, should be in danger of establishing rules of secrecy around their affairs which they would condemn if it occurred in Whitehall? If the House were to punish a journalist while letting the source of the leak go scot free, would it not appear to many outside as both pompous and extremely unfair?
    The Prime Minister: That is a House of Commons matter, and the House of Commons will decide.
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the widespread support of the British people for the initiative she has taken to prevent terrorism? Will she take time today to consider the terrorism of British scientists by
    250
    the Animal Liberation Front, which has caused millions of pounds' worth of damage during the past year and which is now resorting to the use of bombs and other forms of violence?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. One can only utterly condemn the activities of the animal liberation movement, which deliberately poisons and contaminates food to cause great harm to human beings, and deliberately lets out animals, which causes harm to other animals. We support the police in their activities to deal with it. If further legislation were needed, we should not hesitate to introduce it.
    Mr. Kinnock: First, I endorse every word of the Prime Minister's last answer.
    In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, is the right hon. Lady aware of the widespread feeling that the coordination of information between her relevant Ministers has been inadequate? Does she accept that the best assurance against unjustified alarm is candid information and coherent organisation by the Government? Will she ensure that clear and explicit information is provided to the general public about the form, incidence and implications of radioactive contamination in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I read what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on Tuesday. I thought that it was an excellent statement. It was very well received. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, after the arrival of the radioactive cloud over the United Kingdom last Friday, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food set up an incident room to provide expert advice on foodstuffs, and the Department of the Environment is acting as the overall lead Department, with responsibility for co-ordinating, monitoring and disseminating relevant information and acting as a focal point for inquiries.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the right hon. Lady has time, will she ensure that action is taken to remove the inconsistencies that have been apparent in the information, and that the information is put in a form which the general public can clearly comprehend?
    The Prime Minister: That is one reason for the Department of the Environment information room—it acts a clearing-house for information. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's request to try to put the information in a form that ordinary people can understand.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I first congratulate the Prime Minister on her safe return from an outstandingly successful conference. May I, in the context of the Chernobyl disaster, refer her to the tendentious, inaccurate and damaging advertisement published by Friends of the Earth in The Times today. Does she agree that the damage done to Western economies by OPEC in the last decade would pale into total insignificance if Western Governments were to be panicked by public reaction into closing down the nuclear industry?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is the first to know and to say that the record of the nuclear industry in this country has been excellent. As far as civil installations are concerned, there has been no fatality in this country. Provided we go on, as we shall, in safety in design, safety in manufacturing, safety in the mode of

    251
    operation and safety in maintenance, I believe that that record will continue and will gain public confidence once again.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: On reflection, does the Prime Minister not agree that she was rather unfair and hasty in dismissing the present Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from his position as chairman of the Conservative party? Is she aware that it is an open secret here that, even among his Cabinet colleagues, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction at the way in which the present chairman of the Tory party is carrying on, and no doubt by tomorrow morning there will be even more dissatisfaction? Being no doubt, in some respects at least, a fair-minded person, why does the Prime Minister not bring back the little fellow and give him another chance?
    The Prime Minister: Both of them do extremely well wherever they serve, and that is what the hon. Gentleman does not like.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the outstanding part that she played in the success of the Tokyo summit and say how pleased I am that far greater prominence was given to the problems of agriculture than at any previous summit. May I tell my right hon. Friend that the present policy of cutting agricultural prices will fail, and urge her urgently to call a conference of all nations which have agricultural exports to form a concerted policy in order to avoid a trade war across the Atlantic?
    The Prime Minister: As I think my hon. Friend knows, for the first time we had quite a considerable discussion on agriculture and on the tendency to protect and subsidise it so that we have enormous surpluses. He is the first to know that we have to find a way of getting down those surpluses. I am well aware of his personal opinion that price reductions may not be the only way, but I think he will agree, from the communiqué at the Tokyo summit, that for the first time all nations are looking at it together as a common problem instead of looking at it as a matter of competitive subsidies and competitive protection. I think that to look at it together and to cooperate in finding a solution—and through OECD—is the best way to go about it.

    Tourism
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to appoint a Minister with responsibility solely for tourism.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment exercises overall ministerial responsibility for policy towards tourism very effectively.
    Mr. Gregory: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments. I hope that at the next opportunity she will consider a full-time post, bearing in mind that tourism is the fastest growth sector in the economy. Does my right hon. Friend understand that some 70,000 jobs were created last year and that those jobs are in no way, as the Opposition suggest, Mickey Mouse jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that they are not Mickey Mouse jobs. Tourism is an enormous industry in this country. Total turnover in 1985 was around £13 billion, which is far greater than that of the aerospace industry and about the same as the whole of that of the motor industry. Altogether that industry supports between 1 million and 1·5 million jobs. It is a growing industry. It will produce more jobs. However, I believe that the present arrangements under my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are very effective.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar-producing countries and the sugar beet industry——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns tourism.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that she has just given, and consider whether it would be a good idea to promote one of our women Members of Parliament into that job as, clearly, it is the women, the wives abroad and at home, who are——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would that add to tourism?
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Yes. The women have far more say on tourism than the men.
    The Prime Minister: I shall of course consider putting someone who will suit my hon. Friend in that Department.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the tourist industry is liable to be affected by the report of John Large Associates, consultant engineers, which suggests that many of our nuclear power stations are less safe than those in the Soviet Union? In particular, will she institute a review of safety procedures at the Trawsfynydd power station, which is in one of our finest Welsh tourist areas?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me reply on the excellent safety record of civil nuclear installations in this country. He is casting aspersions on our most excellent nuclear inspectorate.
    Mr. Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting tourism together with the arts and heritage to form one larger and more effective Ministry with Cabinet rank, so that we can promote those great assets of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: All those things are represented at Cabinet rank. Tourism comes under my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and heritage and various other things come under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am often asked to take Departments apart and put them back together again in different ways. I am reluctant to do so because I think that too much effort goes into reorganisation and too little into considering the real subject.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that it seems a little strange that Tory Members of Parliament want a new Minister responsible for tourism when they already have one—the Prime Minister herself? Since she came to public office in 1979, she has gallivanted round the world so many times that she has cost the British taxpayer more than £2·5 million already. What I want to know is how much the last Tokyo jaunt cost.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can be wholly responsible for the 1 million to 1·5 million jobs that tourism has created in this country.
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outstanding achievement of the Tokyo summit has been the extraordinary unanimity that it has been possible for her to achieve among a large number of disparate sovereign nations? Does she agree that that unity contrasts rather strangely with the disunity that we see in the misnamed alliance parties, whose Members are rather short in number in the Chamber today?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Soley: Did the Prime Minister take a recent opportunity to remind President Reagan that the mining of harbours in Nicaragua and the funding of the Contras are real forms of terrorism, especially in view of the fact that the Government of Nicaragua were elected democratically, as confirmed by an all-party committee of the House—the Human Rights Parliamentary Group?
    The Prime Minister: The matter was discussed in Tokyo, I believe, among the Foreign Ministers. It was made perfectly clear that both we and the United States support the Contadora process. The regime in Nicaragua is becoming more oppressive. The free publication of some church newspapers and radio station broadcasts has been stopped.
    Sir Eldon Griffiths: While my right hon. Friend was so splendidly batting for Britain in Tokyo, did she notice that back home, in Wapping, 140 British police officers were injured, many of them badly, by those who masqueraded as peaceful pickets outside the printing plant? Did she notice also that an hon. Member described those police officers as "All that is rotten in our society"? Does my right hon. Friend agree with those comments? Will she invite the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Labour party, to remove that smear from the Metropolitan police?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, both of the activities last Saturday night outside the printing plant in Wapping—one can only totally and utterly condemn them and say that they were quite deplorable in terms of the effect on the police—and of the remarks of an hon. Member, which I also totally and utterly condemn. We support the police in the way in which they carry out their duties. Some 300 police have been injured in the demonstration outside the printing plant in Wapping. I note that the Labour party condones the tactics that lead to violence on the picket line at Wapping. The Labour party voted against the Public Order Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It tolerates Labour councils which harass the police and it cheers speakers at its conference describing the police as "the enemy". Our view is totally different. We support and admire the police.

Food Imports (East Europe)
3.33 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EEC provisional agreement yesterday to ban food imports from east Europe except East Germany.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Provisional agreement, subject to formal approval, has been reached on a Commission proposal for a temporary ban on the import of certain foodstuffs from countries falling within an approximate radius of 1,000 km of Chernobyl. The countries are the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It is a short-term precautionary measure which would, if formally approved, run until 31 May.
Mr. Taylor: How can my hon. Friend justify the exclusion of East Germany from the ban, bearing in mind that parts of East Germany are much nearer to the disaster than parts of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, particularly when East Germany has provided consistently a notorious vehicle whereby East Germany trade slips through to the West because of the inner German trade agreement? How can we determine which east European food comes from East Germany? If there is a problem of contaminated food reaching our constituents, why should my hon. Friend leave this huge loophole? If there is not a real problem, as suggested by the World Health Organisation, is this not a rather silly public relations ploy?
Mr. Eggar: The greater part of the German Democratic Republic does not fall within the approximate 1,000 km range which has been proposed by the Commission and accepted in principle by member states. My hon. Friend pointed to an alleged loophole as a result of inner German trade. If the regulation came into operation, it would have a direct effect throughout the Community. It would be up to the West German authorities to give effect in practice to the ban.
Mr. Richard Livsey: What will happen to the food that has already been exported to the West? What are those foodstuffs? What action has been taken?
Mr. Eggar: The ban is expected to come into effect at midday on Saturday. Obviously the health authorities in Community countries will keep a close watch on the products already here.
Mr. Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend has said that it will be a short-term ban. What will be the likely effect of the ban on cattle and pigs? Will it be safe to eat that meat in, say, six months' time? What discussions is my hon. Friend having with the food industry in Britain on this matter?
Mr. Eggar: The ban includes fresh meat and offal from the eastern European countries which I have mentioned. We shall, of course, keep the ban under constant review as new scientific evidence is produced during the next few weeks.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the trade in vegetables and meat between East and West Germany leaves a loophole? Does
256
he agree that it is possible for pork, bacon, vegetable products, and so on to be transferred from Poland or Czechoslovakia to East Germany and then onward? Does he agree that that gap will not be closed by the agreement and that, therefore, my constituents and the whole of the British community are left at risk? That is not acceptable.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman must be careful not to exaggerate fears and stir up concerns which are not justified. I have already made it clear that the Community countries responsible for imports from other countries will be responsible for checking the origin of the goods that come in.
Sir Richard Body: Will my hon. Friend explain how we shall institute any safeguards here in respect of those commodities that used frequently to come into the Common Market and Britain from Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and elsewhere? We tried to enforce anti-dumping regulations, but those goods could go through East Germany. Will any steps be taken to prevent that being repeated?
Mr. Eggar: It has been made clear to the West German authorities that they have a responsibility to give effect in practice to the ban. They are well aware of that alleged loophole, and I am sure that they will take the necessary precautions.
Mr. Frank Cook: In considering these matters, have the Government taken account of the difference in acceptable standards between one country and another in terms of derived emergency reference levels? My point is that milk in the United Kingdom from a farm in Cumbria has an emergency reference level of more than 1,000 becquerels a litre, which is more than twice the permitted limit——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about imports from Germany.
Mr. Cook: I was referring, Sir, to the different standards in European countries. I am asking whether account has been taken of those differences. I simply offered that comment as an explanation. I am concerned that acceptable limits here may be considered hazardous elsewhere and that, therefore, we may be jeopardising our electorate without knowing it.
Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. Tomorrow and next week meetings will take place among the experts of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Community countries in an attempt to agree as far as possible the advice that is given.
Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has convinced no one with his original answer? Why cannot the ban come into effect immediately?
Mr. Eggar: Under the Community procedure, the ban cannot come into effect until all the countries have given their agreement. We expect that agreement to be given tomorrow, with the ban coming into effect on Saturday. [Interruption.] I heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) say that it will take three years. I am not sure how he can seriously put forward that point of view when the Community has acted extremely rapidly.
Mr. Speaker: Order. He has not done it.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I endorse entirely the Minister's sensible view that the spreading of unnecessary public alarm should not be encouraged by this House. However, his response to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) did not go as far as it ought to go towards achieving that very reasonable objective, for the simple reason that it made it clear that there is a loophole that has not been filled. Are the Government unable to do anything else to reassure the British public that the loophole through East Germany is not one from which this country may suffer?
Mr. Eggar: There is no loophole. First, the German Democratic Republic falls without the 1,000 km area. Secondly. if such imports were routed through East Germany from other COMECON countries, there would be a duty on the West German authorities to make sure that the origins were checked.
Sir William Clark: If there were direct exports from East Germany to this country, how should we be able to stop them? Why is it not possible for this country to act unilaterally, without waiting for our EEC partners, and impose a ban at once?
Mr. Eggar: We are talking about a ban that is to come into effect on Saturday. Very stringent checks are already being made on fresh foodstuffs, including foodstuffs that are not included on the Community's list. As to the possibility of direct exports of listed foodstuffs to this country from East Germany, we have the same obligation as the West German authorities to ensure that they meet the criteria.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the West German Government would not have agreed to this procedure if they were not satisfied that they would be able to check the origin of the goods entering their country?
Mr. Eggar: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The European Community was convinced at its meeting earlier this week that it was practicable to introduce these measures.
Mr. Brynmor John: In view of the acrimonious discussions at official level, is the Minister satisfied that the Government of every country will agree to this ban? Will he also reconsider the loophole that has been discovered relating to imports from East Germany? How will the Government of West Germany know whether food routed through East Germany is East German in origin? They will have only the word of another Government to go on. It is not fair to the Government of West Germany.
Mr. Eggar: I am unaware of the acrimonious discussions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman relies upon the Financial Times, he ought to have more impeccable sources. If the West German Government are convinced that they can introduce the necessary measures to ensure that the ban is followed through, we should have no reason to doubt them.

Parliamentary Papers (Delivery)
Mr. Nicholas Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today is the latest in a succession of days when the Deliverer of the Vote has failed to deliver the Vote bundle to a number of right hon. and hon. Members. I wonder whether this is a matter which I ought to raise with you, Mr. Speaker. The Deliverer of the Vote has made the excuse that there is staff sickness. He seems to be unaware of the inadequacies of the postal service. I am wondering whether something could be done to ensure that the Vote bundle is delivered promptly.
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter while the Prime Minister is making her statement. If the hon. Gentleman will raise the matter again at the end of her statement, I shall deal with it.
Later——
Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to make the point again, or may I deal with it straight away?
Mr. Baker: I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for not having given you notice of it. I do not expect an answer now, but I ask you to look into the matter.
This is the last of a large number of days on which many of us have received our parliamentary papers late. I am collecting the notes which the Deliverer issues. He says that staff sickness is the cause of the late delivery. I wonder whether alternative arrangements could be made. I wish to place on record the fact that sadly the post, which is the alternative method of getting the papers to many of us which he uses, is simply not up to it these days. It no longer delivers papers the day after posting. I should be grateful if arrangements could be made for prompt delivery of the papers.
Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter earlier, I undertook to look into it, and I have done so. I understand that the standard of service provided by the Deliverer of the Vote in recent days has deteriorated somewhat.
I am informed that there has been sickness among the staff concerned which made it impossible to maintain the standard of service which is normally provided. It is expected that full service will be restored next week.
I regret the inconvenience that has been caused to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members. I shall look again at what the hon. Gentleman has said about the bad service continuing over a longer period.

Tokyo Economic Summit
3.44 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the economic summit held in Tokyo on 4–6 May at which I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Copies of the statements issued by the summit have been placed in the Library of the House.
The summit dealt with five principal issues: international terrorism, the Soviet nuclear accident, economic policy, protectionism and agriculture.
On international terrorism, we specified a number of measures which each of us resolved to apply in our own jurisdiction and agreed to encourage others to apply as widely as possible. The measures are: refusal to export arms to states which can be clearly shown to be involved in sponsoring or supporting terrorism; strict limits on the size of the diplomatic and consular missions of such states, controls on the travel of their members and radical reductions or closure of their missions where appropriate; denial of entry to all our countries for persons who have been expelled or excluded from any one of them for reasons connected with terrorism; improved extradition procedures in order to bring suspected terrorists to trial; stricter immigration and visa requirements in respect of nationals of states responsible for terrorism; and the closest possible bilateral and multilateral co-operation between police and security organisations in the fight against terrorism. We also agreed to consider together any further measures which may be needed.
Our statement will be a clear signal that the summit nations will not tolerate state-sponsored terrorism and it will bring home to those who practise such terrorism the heavy costs which they will incur. Terrorism must be resisted, not appeased.
We examined the implications of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. We expressed our sympathy for those affected and offered any assistance that might be requested. Our statement recorded our continuing confidence in a properly managed nuclear power industry, that is, one which sets the highest possible standards of safety in the design, manufacture, operation and maintenance of nuclear installations. Each country has a responsibility to adhere to those standards, both to its citizens and to the wider community. Each country also has a responsibility to provide promptly detailed and complete information on nuclear emergencies, especially those with consequences across national frontiers.
We therefore recommended that an international convention should be drawn up, as soon as possible, which would commit the parties to report and exchange information in the event of nuclear emergencies.
In our discussion of economic matters, we noted that the economies of the industrialised countries are now in their fourth year of expansion, that in all our countries the rate of inflation has been declining; that this decline, in conjunction with continuing prudent fiscal and monetary policies, has created the conditions for lower interest rates; and that there has been a significant shift in the pattern of exchange rates which better reflects fundamental economic conditions.
260
We agreed that the recent decline in oil prices would help to sustain non-inflationary growth and increase the volume of world trade.
We established new arrangements between the seven summit countries to make economic co-operation more effective.
We recognised that the world economy still faced a number of difficult challenges.
Although we have had some success in creating new jobs to meet additions to the labour market, unemployment remains excessively high in many of the summit countries. Other persistent problems are large budgetary deficits and trade imbalances, protectionist pressures and the continuing difficulties of many developing countries and severe debt problems for some.
But overall we agreed that developments since our last meeting in Bonn have demonstrated the effectiveness of our policies; and that continuation of them will enhance the prospects for, and confidence in, the future of the world economy.
In dealing with protectionism, we reiterated our support for the early launching of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations in the GATT and looked for decisive progress at the ministerial meeting already scheduled for September.
We also proposed that the new round should among other things address the issues of trade in services, foreign direct investment and intellectual property rights. I believe that this last point will be especially welcomed by the many British companies which have seen their copyrights and patents blatantly disregarded.
In our discussions on agriculture, so important to the well-being of our rural communities, we considered in particular the consequencies of world-wide agricultural surpluses. These have arisen as a result of technological change and of long-standing policies of domestic subsidy and protection in all the summit countries. We recognised that the existence of these surpluses and efforts to dispose of them harm the economies of certain developing countries and aggravate the risk of wider protectionist pressures. We agreed that, as these concerns were common to all summit countries, they could be resolved only by effective co-operation between us; they cannot be solved by competitive subsidies and protection.
We discussed a considerable number of other issues including East-West relations and arms control, the middle east, South Africa and the need to maintain the momentum of international action against traffic in drugs, following up the initiative taken by the United Kingdom at the Bonn economic summit last year.
I should like to pay tribute to the skilful and effective chairmanship of the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Nakasone, which contributed greatly to the success of the meeting.
The hallmarks of this summit were unity and confidence: unity in our determination to see that those who practise state terrorism do not succeed; confidence that our economic policies are right and will bring greater prosperity to our peoples. The United Kingdom was able to play a prominent role in achieving these results and in ensuring a valuable, constructive and forward-looking summit.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I first endorse the general view expressed by the summit seven on the implications of the disaster at Chernobyl? May I also

261
express the hope that each country will rigorously adhere to the statements on high standards of safety, candid information and an effective response to emergencies, both domestically and internationally? Even though I appreciate the impediments, may I particularly support the efforts to secure an international convention committing countries that produce nuclear energy to report and exchange information?
On economic matters, the summit statement surpasses all previous statements in its self-satisfied complacency. In so far as some significant action was proposed, why did not the Prime Minister support the attempts of the United States Treasury Secretary, James Baker, to secure some real co-ordination in the international trade and financial system? Is an annual meeting between seven Finance Ministers simply to "review" performance, as the statement puts it, not a pathetically inadequate response to the need for international co-operation and co-ordination to combat unemployment and under-development?
I am sure that the whole House will recognise the general worthiness of the summit statement on terrorism. However, does not the view of the Japanese Government, that the implementation of the statement on terrorism
"is a matter left for each country's judgment"
and
"there is virtually no measure which Japan should take in a concrete way"
somewhat reduce the validity of that declaration on terrorism?
What is the Prime Minister's response to the post summit statements of both President Reagan and Vice-President Bush concerning Syria? Does she agree with Signor Craxi that military action is "precluded" by the Tokyo agreement? Can the right hon. Lady clear up the confusion that obviously exists on this vital question among the Japanese, the Italians and the Americans, since they obviously hold different views about what "mission accomplished" actually means?
Frankly, if the permissive and vague statement on terrorism was supposed to be the great achievement of last weekend in Tokyo, this summit reached new levels of stagnation, selfishness and superficiality.
The Prime Minister: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, he cannot detract from the great success of the summit, which was recognised by those there and almost universally. I found his statement excessively banal.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Chernobyl nuclear accident. I think that he endorsed what the summit said about it.
With regard to international co-operation on monetary matters and the world economy, we worked very closely with Secretary Baker, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we have worked closely together throughout the year. There have been excellent results from that co-operation and from the summit.
There is a very clear declaration on terrorism, to which all summit countries are committed. We shall obviously be monitoring its application.
With regard to any other countries which may or may not seem to exercise state-sponsored terrorism, we shall have to consider this when and if we have evidence which clearly means that they are involved in state-sponsored terrorism. There would have to be consultation among the summit seven to apply sanctions to any other country.
Sir Frederic Bennett: In respect of the terrorist document, the Prime Minister has been among the first to realise that an essential element in the long-term treatment of the matter will be to obtain an agreement on the ground of extradition and somehow to co-ordinate extradition laws so that people cannot escape responsibility for terrorism by opposing extradition on political grounds. Although the Prime Minister obviously could not obtain immediate results, did she find a generally sympathetic attitude towards the idea that this will be an essential feature in the conquest of terrorism?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Improved extradition procedures were one factor which was highlighted by the summit countries. My right hon. Friend is aware that we are looking to improve our extradition procedures because they are not sufficient to enable us to ratify some European conventions. We have published our intentions in a White Paper and measures will come forward in the Criminal Justice Bill next Session.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: What has made the Prime Minister so much more enthusiastic about summits than she was seven years ago, especially since the 1979 Tokyo communiqué was rather more precise on this subject than is the present communiqué? What is her position on exchange rates? Does she agree with Mr. James Baker that this is the most important development since the end of Bretton Woods, or was she correctly reported as expressing complete scepticism about the ability to achieve any stability in exchange rates?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I prefer summits that meet only once a year to those that meet three times a year. In Europe, we no longer meet three times a year, as we did when he was President of the EEC. It has been reduced to twice a year, which most people would agree is a great improvement and is about the right number.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall the previous Tokyo summit in 1979, which dealt with oil imports. It was not the world's most successful summit either in its conclusions or in its unity.
Thr right hon. Gentleman would be the first to know that there can be no such thing as a universal fixed exchange rate for all countries unless all of them run their economies in the same way. Even then, the exchange rate could be badly upset by sudden events such as increases or reductions in oil prices. He would be the first to know why the Bretton Woods system broke down and the first to be aware that, for the time being, the G5 countries have what could be called a managed float. It can be managed only because the yen and the dollar got wholly out of line with the underlying factors in their economies. Therefore, the measures taken are meant to bring them more into line with the underlying economic strength of both countries.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all responsible Members on both sides of the House will welcome what she has said about the international agreement to combat the scourge of international terrorism? Can she say a few more words about what is proposed for the future? Will she be a little more specific about the further measures to be considered?
The Prime Minister: A number of proposals were made for further measures varying from completely excluding—as we have done—Libyan people's bureaux

263
from countries, instead of reducing them, to taking sterner measures to reduce the amount of oil which we take from Libya. Those matters will be further considered among us and, if necessary, further recommendations will be made.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As for protectionism, does the Prime Minister remember that, some months ago, she and other Ministers promised the country thousands of jobs and contracts arising from the star wars project? She must have known then that America operates enormous protectionism which would prevent our getting more than a minimal number of jobs. Was that matter raised at Tokyo and if so, with what results?
The Prime Minister: Our scientists and companies will compete for SDI contracts in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have some specialists in certain aspects of SDI work who stand a very good chance of getting more contracts.
Mr. David Crouch: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the world-wide condemnation of the Soviet Union for not notifying the world immediately of the disaster at Chernobyl? I welcome her statement from the summit that assistance will be offered to the Soviet Union in the wake of the disaster. Is that assistance without conditions?
The Prime Minister: We recommend that, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, we should set up a more effective code for notification in such circumstances, which we obviously hope will not occur again. Nevertheless, it would be better to have a proper convention. We shall respond to any request for assistance. We have responded in so far as we have been asked, and, as far as I am aware, no conditions are attached to our offer. We intend and want to be as helpful as possible in these circumstances.
Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Prime Minister raise with President Mitterrand the French terrorist attack in New Zealand when two Greenpeace crew members were killed by French agents, especially as the purpose of the Greenpeace mission was to draw the world's attention to the effects in the Pacific of French nuclear tests?
Has the right hon. Lady considered making available to the Soviet Union the food surpluses in the Common Market as their food supplies have been badly affected by the tragedy at Chernobyl?
The Prime Minister: I did not discuss the Greenpeace matter in New Zealand with the French President. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that France has apologised for the incident and is anxious to do as much as it can to clear up any outstanding issues with New Zealand.
As for food surpluses, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that they regularly find their way to the Soviet Union. Indeed, I am often questioned in the House about the cheap rates at which they go to the Soviet Union.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her robust approach to the Japanese regarding discriminatory tariffs on Scotch whisky was much admired? How optimistic is she that her efforts have borne fruit? Did she have the opportunity to raise with President Reagan the threat of increased tariffs on Scotch whisky in
264
the United States, bearing in mind the fact that Scotch whisky is one of our most successful and important exports?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that I tackled Prime Minister Nakasone about the enormously high tax that the Japanese put on Scotch whisky, which I regard as thoroughly discriminating and something of a test of whether the Japanese are really prepared to accept more imports to go a little way to redress their colossal external balance of trade. I made the same point to the President of the United States, because the matter has been raised in connection with the enlargement of the European Community. I said that I thought that it would be utterly wrong if any unilateral retaliation were taken. There must be discussion in GATT, if anywhere, and I hope that no action whatever will be taken against Scotch whisky.
Mr. Reg Freeson: Will the Prime Minister be a little more specific about the impact of the statement on co-operation against international terrorism? Is there to be increased funding for Interpol, which is short of resources? Are there to be any moves towards economic sanctions, following the example of the United States requesting the withdrawal of oil investments in Libya?
Is there to be any cut in arms trading to north Africa, Africa generally and the middle east? Was any consideration given to Mr. Peres' recent proposal for regional development plans for the middle east, which would do more than anything else to reduce instability and the threats of war and violence there?
The Prime Minister: With regard to Interpol, I am not aware of any shortage of resources as we intend to maximise co-operation. If there is a shortage, we must consider that. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we do our level best to ensure that the police in Britain have the resources that they need. That would include cooperation between our police forces and others.
There is no embargo on oil in this communiqué, but the matter was discussed and could be considered further. As I said in my initial reply, we agreed on a refusal to export arms to states which sponsor or support terrorism. No doubt the Peres economic programmes would be of great help to some countries in the middle east, but they are no substitute for a political initiative.
Sir Peter Tapsell: When my right hon. Friend discussed British and other exports to Japan with the Japanese Prime Minister, did she say that, in addition to the unreasonably high import duties that they impose, despite their vast trading surplus, their retail system and specially elaborate method of mark-ups on imported goods which could possibly compete with Japanese-produced goods are deliberately designed to make it impossible for us to have a fair trading relationship with a country that we all very much admire?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Their retail system is grossly inefficient. However good might be the product that we are able to export to Japan, it cannot go into anything like as effective a retail distribution system as we have. We have raised this matter many times. Their distribution system is inefficient and grossly overmanned. I am afraid that it is a cultural problem and will take quite a long time to redress.
Mr. Clive Soley: Earlier the Prime Minister justified the use of terrorism against Nicaragua on

265
the ground that the regime has become even more authoritarian. Does she not realise that she has opened the door to any group of people who, on losing an election, choose to move outside the borders of their country and seek the finance, training and weapons of a neighbouring power to carry on their campaign against their country, using the methods of terror? Does she not realise that she is making the matter worse?
The Prime Minister: At no time did I justify the use of terrorism. I said that we support the Contadora process, which is a peaceful process. I noted in passing that the regime in Nicaragua is becoming more oppressive. Both of those are facts and do not warrant the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based.
Mr. Dennis Walters: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient progress was made in agreeing what steps are necessary to deal with the problems underlying terrorism, such as a serious new peace initiative in the middle east?
The Prime Minister: Foreign Ministers discussed the middle east. I agree with my hon. Friend. We are anxious that there is no new political initiative. We want there to be one. Several have collapsed and it is extremely difficult to find one that will be successful. We shall continue the search. My hon. Friend knows that I shall visit Israel later this summer—if we can call it summer—and we will do what we can to consider the matter before then.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can Mr. Reagan take unilateral action against Syria now, in the light of discussions with the Prime Minister?
As for kidnap insurance and the Government's apparent desire to clamp down on these matters, did the Prime Minister raise the issue with other Heads of State? What was resolved, or does she intend to turn a blind eye?
The Prime Minister: The communiqué mentions Libya, but it does not mention any other state. If it applied to any other state., we should have to have evidence that the terrorism was state sponsored, similar to that in regard to Libya.
The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the question of kidnap insurance. Several insurance companies in Britain and other countries supply kidnap insurance. We have to consider the matter on a rather more unilateral basis.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the economic declaration which discusses the international debt problem and my right hon. Friend's mention of that problem in her statement. Was consideration given at Tokyo to any specific initiative in relation to the deterioriating debt-export ratio of some developing countries, which are particularly dependent on the export of oil or other commodities?
The Prime Minister: No, we did not go beyond the previous ways of dealing with international debt, which are on a case-by-case basis. We are aware that, whereas for some countries a falling oil price has been very helpful in enabling them to meet their debt obligations, there are countries where it has been very damaging and those countries may need more help to meet their debts. My hon. Friend will be aware of the Baker initiative in Seoul.
Mr. Michael Foot: Why is the right hon. Lady so sensitive about the accusation that she turns
266
a blind eye to terrorist methods when they are used against the Government of Nicaragua? Did she insist on discussing that matter with President Reagan, who is, in fact, engaged in supporting terrorist action against the Government of Nicaragua? Strong support is given in the communiqué on terrorism, which she praises so highly, to the demand that action should be taken, especially through the United Nations. Does that mean that she and President Reagan have now repented for the raid on Tripoli which was made in defiance of, and certainly not in concert with, the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: With regard to Nicaragua. I made it perfectly clear that Foreign Ministers and we support the Contadora process. With regard to terrorism and the action of the United Nations, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and the statement from the Security Council which all condemn terrorism most vigorously. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the United Nations is not a body which can take or has taken any effective action in that regard.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome the inclusion of the problem of drug abuse on the summit agenda again this year? Is she aware that since the previous summit conditions are still very bad and the younger generation of this country are probably as much at risk, if not more than last year, and that there is still a great deal to be done?
The Prime Minister: As a result of the action at the previous summit, we have received a report on drugs during the year. My hon. Friend is aware that we are taking action in our own countries. He will know what is being done here, and I am sure that he will applaud it and the work of the Home Office. We are also taking international action to see whether we can obtain intelligence of cargoes that would be coming to this country. We have a number of Customs officers in other locations in the world where drugs are produced, and that is proving very effective. My hon. Friend will also know that many drugs have been seized at London airport. I do not say that complacently because we must continue with our plans and activities most vigorously because this is a terrible trade.
Mr. John Hume: Did the Prime Minister find any support at the summit for the view that the risk of a single accident in a century at a nuclear power station, with all its alarming consequences—a risk which is obviously very high—removes all justification for the use of nuclear power?
The Prime Minister: No. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member can do other than accept the fact that in this country civil nuclear power has an excellent record. There has been no fatal accident. It is a vigorous industry and, provided that we keep up our careful monitoring of design, manufacture, operational work and maintenance and our excellent nuclear inspectorate, we can continue to have confidence in that industry, which was born in this country.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the general welcome for the statement about co-operation in relation to international terrorism? Does she agree that had she not taken the action to support the Americans in their moves against Libya the present

267
international agreement about international terrorism, limited but welcome though it is, is unlikely to have been made?
The Prime Minister: Had we left things as they were with the proposed statement at the beginning, it would have been grossly inadequate and it would have been seen to have been grossly inadequate. We felt that it was important that we should take more peaceful ways to try to combat terrorism and that we should enumerate those, not just have a general statement, and that we should be seen to be prepared to take further measures. It was as a result of the action of this country that we got that statement in the end from a totally united set of summit countries.
Mr. James Wallace: Does not the Prime Minister think that many in the House will find it surprising that there was no indication in her statement that the problems of world hunger and development had been discussed, let alone any positive action proposed to alleviate the hunger of one starving child? Does she not think that, whatever other important matters should appear on the agenda at such meetings, the fundamental problems of world hunger and development should appear automatically when the leaders of the world's richest nations meet?
The Prime Minister: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman looks through the economic communiqúe he will find the matter referred to. He will find Africa singled out for special attention, as he would expect, and he will also find that we discussed the replenishment of the IDA funds which are at present under consideration. The hon. Gentleman will not find a particular sum mentioned except that we agree that there must be a substantial replenishment. He will know that this country is prepared to play its full part in that and I believe that other summit countries will do the same.
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow a further five minutes for questions, then we must move on.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her achievements at the summit. However, was she not somewhat dismayed by how difficult it proved to be to persuade the French President to agree to the robust wording of the communiqúe on terrorism? Did she notice the admiring published comment of the United States Secretary of State in that context? He said:
"Margaret really wrestled Old Francois to the mat on this one."
Will that sort of wrestling have to continue in order to. keep the EEC sound on terrorism?
The Prime Minister: I deny that absolutely. It was realised that we took a robust line on terrorism and on enumerating and detailing more peaceful measures, and that was right. Gradually other summit countries came along and we added further things to the communiqúe. In the end, we had considerable co-operation from all summit countries and the entire communiqúe was agreed.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether, as a result of her economic discussions, she is to be allowed to lift the
268
pressure of economic terrorism perpetrated against New Zealand because of its refusal to have nuclear weapons within its waters?
The Prime Minister: We have difficulty with our naval ships entering New Zealand ports because of conditions it has laid down. The Prime Minister of New Zealand is very much aware of that. I have also told the Prime Minister of New Zealand that we shall continue to fight in this country for a fair deal for New Zealand in the Community because we know very well that many of its products, especially lamb and butter, are vital to the future of its economy.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Since point 9 of the official communiqué committed the summit leaders to maintain and, where appropriate, expand official financial flows to the developing countries, what consequences for United Kingdom policy does my right hon. Friend see flowing from that commitment?
The Prime Minister: When my hon. Friend asked that queston it so happened that I had the economic communiqué open at that page. It says that private financial flows will continue to play a major part in providing for their development needs. That is correct, and my hon. Friend is aware that we have constantly emphasised that such financial flows are very valuable to the developing countries. We also insist that in the GATT trade round we must consider the rules for direct foreign investment in other countries as that can be very helpful to those countries. We also hope that the private financial flows from this country, which fell a little last year, will increase once again.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, by and large, the British people will see through the hypocrisy of the so-called statement against terrorism, robust though she declares it to be, in the absence of any action to be taken by the Government against the British banks trading with Libya? Did she, for instance, put forward a simple proposition that, in order to combat terrorism, she would be calling upon all the Tory Members who hold directorships with companies trading with Libya to give up those directorships? Did she say, for instance, that she had sent a letter to the chairman of the Tory party telling him that, if money for Tory party funds was received from companies that are trading with Libya, it should be sent back? Unless she does things such as that, the British people will see through the hypocrisy and understand that this Prime Minister is more concerned with making profit and less concerned with the lives of innocent men, women and children in Libya or elsewhere.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall the actions of the NUM in trying to get help from Libya.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In view of the specific nature of some of the decisions made, is not a weakness of the summit system the fact that there is no continuing organisation to implement decisions? After all, is it good enough that there should be meetings at intervals but nothing in between to ensure that the decisions are carried out, co-ordinated and monitored?
The Prime Minister: I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend raises. We attempted to do something about it in relation to the economic side of summit life. He will see from the communiqué that in certain circumstances the

269
five nations that call themselves G5 are to meet at all seven summit countries—which call themselves G7—on economic and exchange matters. I believe that that is a great improvement that will help. We are also aware that it would be advisable if from time to time in the interim the Foreign Ministers met, because this is one of the few organisations that girdles the world in its membership.

Business of the House
4.21 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about the business for next week:

MONDAY 12 MAY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.

Motion for the Spring Adjournment.

TUESDAY 13 MAY—There will be a debate on civil nuclear matters. The debate will arise on a motion which will invite the House to approve the Government's first stage response to the first report of the Select Committee on the Environment 1985–86 on Radioactve Waste (HoC Paper No. 191).

Motion on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order.

WEDNESDAY 14 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Wages Bill.

There will be a debate on EC documents relating to equal treatment for men and women. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.

THURSDAY 15 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Wages Bill.

FRIDAY 16 MAY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 19 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill (1st Allotted Day).

The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 23 May until Tuesday 3 June.
[Debate on Wednesday 14 May Relevant European Documents

(a) 6871/83

Social security schemes: equal treatment for men and women

(b) 58251/84

Equal treatment for men and women in self-employed occupations

(c) 4118/86

Equal opportunities for women

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 78—xi (1983–84) para 1

(b)HC 78—xxxii (1983–84), para 1

(c)HC 21—xii (1985–86), para 2]

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. I also thank him for responding to my request last week for an early debate on civil nuclear matters. In view of the recently increased possibility of a decision by the United States Administration that would allow the deployment of United States' binary chemical weapons in Britain, will the Leader of the House allocate Government time soon so that the House can debate the matter fully before any final decision is taken?
In view of the fact that the major anxieties facing the arts following the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties have still not been resolved, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a full day's debate on the arts is provided as soon as possible?
Last week, the right hon. Gentleman recognised the need for a wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs. That need increases—indeed, intensifies—when we hear, as we did this afternoon, that the Prime Minister apparently believes that the Contra terrorists, with President Reagan's support, are killing innocent adults and children in central America in order to save Nicaragua for democracy. If it is not possible before the Whitsun recess to have a debate

271
on foreign affairs, can the Leader of the House give a guarantee that such a debate will be held as soon as possible after the House resumes on 3 June? Will he also ensure that it will be a two-day debate, as a large number of issues need to be attended to?
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing sorrow at the death of Manny Shinwell. It can truly be said that Manny used the House of Commons in the most robust fashion and that he enhanced its standing as the democratic forum of the nation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Manny and to his remarkable parliamentary career in both Houses of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. Biffen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman particularly for his remarks about Emmanuel Shinwell. I counted it a very great privilege to have been in this House for a period during which I shared common membership with him. He was one of those compelling characters who combined a good appetite for both dissent and loyalty. That made him a person of great distinction within the Labour movement, and I am happy to pay my respects across the Floor of the House. In so doing, I believe that I communicate the respects of all quarters.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the nuclear debate that we have arranged. I note what he said about prospective developments in American defence policy in relation to chemical weapons, and I shall bear that in mind. Obviously, we can consider this through the usual channels, but perhaps it might also be related to the debate that we shall have in due course on the defence White Paper, once we have had the opportunity of considering the observations of the Select Committee.
Again through the usual channels, perhaps we can consider the arts as a topic for a debate, but in the meantime I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there will be arts questions on Monday.
I accept, as I do every week, the great and compelling need for a debate on foreign affairs. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is raising the ante somewhat by suggesting a two-day debate. Let us look at the matter through the usual channels to see whether it can be arranged at a time that is to the general convenience of the House.
Mr. Harry Greenway: What will be the motion for the debate on civil nuclear matters? Will it enable hon. Members to raise the need for an international standard of safety in civil nuclear installations, bearing in mind the very serious disparity between safety standards in this country and those at Chernobyl? Is not it absurd that we can have such high safety standards in this country and that the population can still be threatened by the sort of tragedy that has happened at Chernobyl?
Mr. Biffen: I very much hope that the motion can be tabled shortly, and the intention is that it should be drawn most widely indeed in view of recent circumstances. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate what would or would not be in order, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed when he sees the terms of the motion.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On Tuesday, will arrangements be made to ensure that there is adequate time to debate the Hong Kong order?
Mr. Biffen: At present, the motion would mean a one-and-a-half hour debate, but if there is concern to have the matter reconsidered through the usual channels, we would be prepared to accept that.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: With regard to the report of the Privileges Committee on the complaint by the Select Committee on the Environment, can my right hon. Friend indicate when this matter might be debated in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I underline what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said—that in every sense this is a straightforward House of Commons occasion. None the less, I think that the House would like to have this matter resolved fairly speedily, and I hope that a debate can be arranged before we go into the Whitsun recess.
Mr. John Ryman: Will the Leader of the House consider regional policy for the north-east, bearing in mind the Government's appalling record of neglect in that region and the need to protect workers in factories where the management obtain some regional aid and then disappear, leaving many workers unpaid and without apparent legal remedies through the absence of a receivership?
Is he aware, for example, that a firm called Para-pace Ltd., of Cramlington in my constituency, has had 40 workers left high and dry by a management which has done a moonlight flit, and there is no remedy that the Department of Trade and Industry can offer to these workers because there has been no receivership? They are all owed money and can do nothing about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously look at the question of regional aid in the north-east?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a debate on one aspect of regional policy next week, although I do not think that it will help the particular point that he has in mind. What I would like to suggest, therefore, is that he use his chance in the motion that we will be debating on Monday for the Spring Adjournment.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will have heard the discussions on tourism during Prime Minister's questions and will be aware of the importance that the Prime Minister attaches to the job creation prospects for that industry. He will also be aware of the very grave concern recently expressed over the loss of tourists this year, due largely to misapprehensions. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the tourism industry has been the subject of only one debate in the entire life of this Parliament.
In view of recent developments, will my right hon. Friend seek time for a Government debate on this subject as soon as possible?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a very precise point, but I am, by the nature of my task, an unyielding creature. I have, therefore, to say to him that, in the circumstances, he too might like to come along on Monday night when we have the recess Adjournment.
Mr. Tony Benn: When the House comes to debate the report of the Privileges Committee,

273
in which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was the one dissenting voice, will he please assure us that there will be an absolutely free vote and that no Government Back Benchers will be under any pressure whatever to suspend membership or lobby rights from the journalist concerned, when the offence for which he was charged was that he made available information about nuclear safety at a time when the Government and others are boasting about the high levels of openness that we now enjoy? Although I have no time for News International or its proprietor, the issue in this case is one that the House must be able to discuss absolutely free of any Government Whips.
Mr. Biffen: I agree that it would be trivialising this particular topic if it were related to News International or its proprietor, and I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. The Prime Minister has said that this is, in every sense, a House of Commons occasion, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should make a generous interpretation of that.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the reply of 6 May, as reported in column 95 of Hansard, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on the European Community budget and contributions thereto. Does my right hon. Friend conclude from this reply that we are to have a European Community supplementary budget every year? Can he assure the House that if and when we are asked to approve supplementary budgets in the European Community the House will be allowed to separate out those elements in the budget which refer to the United Kingdom's rebate, on the one hand, and those elements that may consist simply of increased European Community expenditure, on the other? Can he indicate that we will be able to make a selective choice of what we approve of in the Community and will not be expected to link one unnecessarily with the other?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises again the matter touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) last week. It is of some complexity. I would very much like to be able to write to my hon. Friend on this point and set out the record as I feel it should be.
Mr. James Wallace: While we welcome the fact that statements have been made this week by Ministers on developments following the Chernobyl disaster, and in spite of the fact that we are to have a general debate on civil nuclear power next week, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that in case of any new developments arising out of that disaster in particular Ministers will be equally willing to come to the House and make further statements?
Mr. Biffen: I willingly give that undertaking. The House has a responsible role in damping down any kind of popular scaremongering in these matters.
Mr. David Crouch: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend heard the one o'clock news and the "World at One" programme. If so, he would have heard the chairman of the Channel Tunnel group, Lord Pennock, talking of Parliament "mucking about" the Channel Tunnel Bill. I am a supporter of the Bill but I am also a great supporter of the parliamentary system. I rather resent the attitude of someone who is not a Member and who
274
speaks of Parliament mucking about as it proceeds to examine a Bill of this nature. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the procedures of the House with regard to this hybrid Bill will not be telescoped to suit the Government's purpose and thereby put in jeopardy the right of the people of Kent to have their voice heard and their views taken into account in the consideration of this Bill?
Mr. Biffen: If Lord Pennock has referred to Parliament as "mucking about"—I did not have the advantage of hearing the broadcast—the fact is that Lord Pennock is a member of another place and should show the due hypocritical regard that we all expect of one another as politicians. On the wider issue, I understand the concern that there should be a full and fair discussion of the subject.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Without condoning the activities of News International, can I put it to the Leader of the House that the public will condemn the House if it takes the irresponsible action of expelling The Times journalist, Mr. Richard Evans, particularly when all he did was report on a conversation that he had had with a Member who himself had breached privilege? Would not Fleet street be wise, in the event that such an expulsion were to take place, to withdraw its lobby correspondents in protest?
Mr. Biffen: That was a very interesting contribution. It helps to indicate that we shall have quite a lively debate when the report of the Privileges Committee is placed before the House. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given a trailer of his intended contribution.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful to have a debate on the events outside the News International plant at Wapping, particularly bearing in mind that it would give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity completely to condemn and refute the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who said that the police represent all that is rotten in our society?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has indicated to the House that he would seek to use today's debate to discuss this matter and, as I think that he is the star of the drama, my hon. Friend will have to take advantage of today's debate because I can see no other opportunity in the near future.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement to the House as soon as possible about the system by which firms which award major onshore contracts for offshore oil-related facilities, such as fabricated jackets, can subcontract a great percentage of that work abroad? I ask this for constituency reasons. In the Highlands we have two yards competing for the Shell Eider contract. One will be successful and the other will lose. Whichever is successful, we shall see up to 50 per cent. of the work subcontracted abroad. This will be very damaging. Could the Leader of the House take steps for the House to have a statement on this so that Members may express their views?
May I add my voice to those who call for an early debate on the report of the Committee of Privileges? In a week in which we have rightly criticised the Soviet Union for secrecy, it would be a travesty if the mother of

275
Parliaments, in its attitude to Mr. Richard Evans doing his job as a lobby correspondent, were to take an equally ham-fisted approach.
Mr. Biffen: On the second point. I have indicated that it is my expectation that the debate can take place before we go into recess for the Whitsun break. It could hardly be much earlier than that. As to the first point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is top for questions on Monday, but that may not be the ideal forum for him to make his point. I will, therefore, refer to my right hon. Friend his request for a statement.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Without wishing to intrude into, or remind my right hon. Friend of, recent Government grief, especially as the Home Secretary is on the Front Bench, may I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that on Tuesday of next week my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will move a ten-minute Bill whose purpose is to amend the Shops Act 1950? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will allow a free vote and encourage those on the Front Bench to vote for the Bill? Will he also arrange that it should have a fair wind? Will he promise to give it Government Committee time?
Mr. Biffen: The business about voting is a somewhat arcane subject, which is entirely within the keep of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I should be raising substantially false hopes if at this stage of the Session I were to suggest that there would be a great deal of Government time available to facilitate private Members' legislation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that within a few weeks more than 1,000 tin miners in the south-west will be thrown out of their jobs? Reference has been made to their plight by some of his hon. Friends and by a couple of Liberal Members. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate about the matter and that the tin miners might be treated in the same way that the Tory Government have treated Johnson Matthey, by the use of taxpayers' money, in the same way that they bailed out the Common Market, with £250 million of taxpayers' money, and in the same way as they bailed out the Export Credits Guarantee Department last year with another £350 million? Many businesses will go under because of the closure of the tin mines. Does he agree that that will cause havoc in the south-west and will affect the lives of the families in that area? Will he arrange a debate before those 1,000-odd tin miners finally have to join the dole queue, although some have probably taken redundancy already? Does he also recall that a few weeks ago——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Skinner: This is only a small point. Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago I mentioned to him that the branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union in this building has to come to work two or three hours before the beginning of the afternoon shift so that he can carry out his trade union duties? Why should he have to do that when the other trade union branch secretaries representing the clerical staffs can do their job in a different way? Will the
276
Leader of the House make arrangements for that man, who works on the lifts, to be given the same opportunity to do his trade union job while at work as applies to the others?
Mr. Biffen: On the second point, it probably belongs to the House of Commons Commission, but I shall have the matter considered.
On the first point, I share the hon. Member's concern about the tragedies that are implicit in the misfortunes of the tin industry in the south-west. That is natural since I was raised in the south-west. However, the question of a debate should turn upon the fact that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has produced a report on the tin crisis which the Government are considering. I think that a debate should properly proceed when the Government's response has been published.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I revert to the Channel Tunnel Bill. Now that my right hon. Friend has heard the stern warning issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) about the dangers of trying to telescope the timetable for the Bill, now that Lord Pennock has made such an interesting contribution on the subject of how to win friends and influence people by telling the House to stop mucking about with the Bill, and now that the House has had to pass a special resolution setting up an unprecedented series of hearings by the Select Committee on Standing Orders in order to decide whether the Government should be granted the dispensation which they have requested, does not my right hon. Friend think that he may have been a little dismissive in his reply at this time last week when I issued a warning on the subject? Does he not understand now that the people of Kent want fair play and a fair hearing on the Bill? As there are a hundred legislative obstacles in their way, the Government will trip on every one until they start to see sense on the matter.
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his good-natured comments. Being dismissive is not a characteristic that I usually permit myself; inwardly I might, but at this Box I try to accommodate the public stance. Certainly I was not dismissive but perhaps optimistic. I take account of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) have said, but I am sure that they are well aware that this is a major matter that engages the attention of the Government and that it will be dealt with properly and without any attempt to deny legitimate debate.
Mr. Nigel Forman: It is now nearly two months since the Budget and the publication of the Government's Green Paper on personal tax reform. Since that subject is likely to play an important part in the Conservative party's position at the next election, could my right hon. Friend use his great influence with the Treasury and other relevant Departments to ensure that we have a full debate on this important subject in the near future so that on this occasion all parliamentarians may make their views known before final decisions are taken?
Mr. Biffen: Of course, I shall take account of what my hon. Friend has said. Being a fair-minded person, he will also recognise that this is the time of the year when we have a great deal of legislative business—Report stages and the like. That makes it very difficult to give a clear commitment such as he wants on the topic.

Business of the House
  BILL PRESENTED
    EDUCATION (No. 2)
    Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Chris Patten, and Mr. George Walden, presented (Under Standing Order No. 111 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to provide for the making of grants by the Secretary of State to the Fellowship of Engineering and the Further Education Unit and to make further provision in relation to the arrangements under Part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the pooling of expenditure by local authorities on education, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Crime Prevention
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
4.47 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Crime and the fear of crime are of deep concern to many, perhaps all, of our constituents. I hope, therefore, that the House will welcome this chance to discuss crime prevention. Of course, crime prevention cannot replace the police or the processes of justice. But if we make good use of our opportunities it can make the lives and property of our constituents more secure and help to relieve their anxieties.
Recorded crime in Britain has risen relentlessly for more than 30 years. This is a trend common throughout the Western world. I stress the word "recorded" because with more telephones, more police on the streets and greater use of insurance, the proportion of crimes notified to the police would seem to have risen substantially over the years. This is confirmed by the British crime survey. It means that the actual increase in crime is less than the recorded figures suggest because the proportion of recorded crime has increased. But however one looks at the facts and figures, the reality is bleak and the effort required is great.
The figures show that the vast majority, or some 95 per cent., of offences are against property. Some 81 per cent. of all recorded crime is acquisitive. Much of this is opportunist, and a substantial proportion is made easier by carelessness. That is why the Government have encouraged a wider debate about how we as a society can tackle crime before it happens. Crime prevention should be the starting point of a well-founded law and order policy because it is a good practical first response to the concerns of the community.
One in five car owners still regularly leaves the vehicle unlocked. Only one in 10 homes has what the police regard as good security arrangements—mortice locks on doors and window locks on at least downstairs windows. Some 80 per cent. of theft of and from cars is estimated to be opportunist. More than a quarter of burglaries do not involve forced entry because a door or window is open. Most of us still make it too easy for crime to be committed.
I shall run briefly through our various initiatives, touch on one or two broader considerations and, finally, talk a little about the creation of a climate of opinion which rejects crime and lawlessness.
The most visible means of preventing crime is the police service. We have shown our commitment to it by increasing expenditure in real terms by more than a third, and by providing additional manpower of some 14,500. That has contributed to putting more officers back on the beat, to building closer links between the police and the community, and to many forces being able to put more resources into crime prevention initiatives. The stimulating diversity which we get by having 43 different police forces shines through, particularly in crime prevention When I visit different forces I almost always hear of some fresh local thinking and some new local initiatives. Obviously, we need to spread good practice and to marry those initiatives together. That is a reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks

279
(Mr. Brittan) set up the crime prevention unit, which is at the centre of the web of initiatives which I shall outline this afternoon.
Police training is crucial, both for those who specialise in crime prevention work and for others. A joint working party of the Home Office and the police has recently produced a report, recommending a much expanded role for our Home Office crime prevention centre, which is based at Stafford. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and I have accepted those recommendations and are considering how to take them forward. Today I can announce that I have decided that the post of director of the crime prevention centre should be upgraded from the rank of chief superintendent to that of assistant chief constable.
Two initiatives being pursued throughout the country are property marking schemes and neighbourhood or home watch. Neighbourhood watch has caught the public imagination. There are more than 9,500 such schemes now working in England and Wales—a figure which has nearly trebled in just over a year. That is striking and significant. This is a voluntary partnership between the police and the community against crime such as we have been unable to mobilise previously. It is not imposed by Whitehall. It springs up spontaneously from the neighbourhood. Its strength stems from its ability to bring together good physical security to protect homes and an element of watchfulness. Such schemes help to bring communities together, and they build up attitudes and habits hostile to crime. We shall ensure that the momentum is sustained.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will my right hon. Friend be interested to know that during the past three years in the Norbury area of Croydon the number of neighbourhood watch schemes has almost trebled? It is no accident that during the same period the number of burglaries has fallen dramatically.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that illustration of the point that I seek to make. A London Member in particular would emphasise that neighbourhood watch works only where there is close police involvement, and that that requires policemen, sometimes more policemen than are at present available. I accept that there have been difficulties in establishing neighbourhood watch in parts of some of our cities, partly for that reason. However, I hope that those difficulties can be overcome, because it is in such areas that the schemes are needed most as crime is at its highest.
I can add to my hon. Friend's illustration of the success of the schemes when they are well thought out and properly established. On the Davis estate in Chatham—I visited the town recently—the scheme attracted support from 90 per cent. of the 1,250 dwellings, and crime is reported to have fallen by 50 per cent. during the first nine months of its operation. Soundly based schemes can help people to cope with problems, such as the fear of crime, and can reduce their sense of powerlessness at being unable to do anything about it.
Last October, I announced the establishment of five local crime prevention projects in Croydon, Wellingborough, Swansea, Bolton and north Tyneside. In
280
each a locally led steering group is developing a crime profile of the area's problems and a range of specially tailored crime prevention measures.
Last month, I visited the north Tyneside project and was much impressed with what I saw. I hope that the five local programmes will receive support from everyone, regardless of politics. I was sad to see the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) describe our initiative in Bolton as being "a load of codswallop". I think he is a little out of date, and does not realise that the party line has changed. His attitude is not typical of the local authorities and voluntary groups in the areas concerned, and I hope that their enthusiasm will help to win him round.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Bolton are extremely grateful that Bolton has been selected for the crime prevention initiative, that the director of the initiative has now taken up his post, and that there are high hopes of its considerable contribution to the fight against crime in the town?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's zeal in this matter has been extremely encouraging to me from the beginning. I hope that, regardless of party, the citizens of Bolton will rally round the initiative.
Local authorities can make a major contribution to crime prevention. We have just sent chief constables and local authority chief executives a dossier produced by the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. It summarises a wide range of information on good practice, and gives examples of crime prevention work which is proving its worth. In the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, where my Conservative colleagues deserve, on their record, to hold control today—I am glad that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is present and not doing mischief at the polling station—a booklet giving sound practical advice on crime prevention has been distributed free of charge to some 64,000 residents. The council is helping tenants through the provision of grants for security purposes.
In some areas, far from receiving support and cooperation, the police have experienced consistent hostility and obstruction in introducing crime prevention initiatives. In some areas where the police and the community have tried to work out a scheme, councils have refused permission for the erection of neighbourhood watch signs. When the police have sought to talk to young people in schools about issues, such as road safety, drugs and crime prevention, some schools have prevented them and echoed the anti-police stances of a number of hard Left local authorities.
The potential of police work in schools has been shown clearly in Avon and Somerset, where the police have one officer permanently seconded to one of two schools in the St. Pauls area of Bristol. In one of those schools a reduction of 50 per cent. in referrals to the juvenile bureau has been achieved.
Significant resources are coming from central Government to fund crime prevention schemes. As a result of the expansion of the community programme, there are now 5,087 places approved. Of those, 4,000 have been filled, involving 134 crime prevention projects around the country.

281
In the Consett and Stanley areas of Derwentside, a scheme established in January employs a team of 13 to disseminate advice to the community, particularly to the elderly. The team, under the community programme. has fitted more than 350 window locks and 50 door chains. A scheme in Kirkby on Merseyside provides a 24-hour door porter service at a tower block. The efforts of the team of 15 have largely eliminated criminal damage there. Some £18 million is being provided for crime prevention through the community programme and in addition under the urban programme £6 million is available for the prevention or the alleviation of crime.
We are concerned that everyone, regardless of income, should be protected against crime. Local authorities can use the housing investment resources available to them for crime prevention and security measures. This is one of the features that the Department of the Environment's urban housing renewal unit is considering when allocating the £50 million of resources that it has for projects to improve local authority estates. I think that the House would agree that grants of this type, if they are to be cost effective, should be properly targeted. I notice that the Opposition have recently produced, in a bit of a hurry, some as yet unspecific and uncosted pledges to give everybody home security grants. If the hon. Member for Hammersmith would like to rill in the details of what the Labour party is proposing, I shall gladly get it costed for him. We can add it to the £24 billion of promises already made.
The truth is—this is general thought and advice—that, by pretending to give priority to everything, the Labour party is in effect giving priority to nothing. Any promises connected with law and order have to be judged by the record and by the record, if it ever came to the point, those promises would sink to the bottom of the pile and be quickly forgotten.
Crime prevention thrives on publicity. Many hon. Members will, I hope, be familiar with the Magpies advertising campaign launched under my right hon. Friend's aegis in 1984. The results have been encouraging. One could never prove from the statistics what the direct effect of a campaign like that was. However, domestic burglary in the regions covered by the campaign fell significantly compared with the rest of the country. Therefore, we have extended the campaign to cover Granada, Tyne Tees, Yorkshire, Border, London and Central ITV regions.
I can also announce that, starting now and running through the summer, we are launching a new leaflet and poster campaign targeted against auto crime. Through every police force in England and Wales leaflets will be available at petrol stations, motorway service areas and accessory shops to bring home to motorists what they can—indeed, should—do to reduce the opportunities that they present to thieves.
The House will see that the notion of partnership runs like a thread through crime prevention—partnership between the police and the community, between Government and commerce, between voluntary and statutory agencies and partnership across the political divide. That was a key theme of the seminar on crime prevention that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held in January. It brought together a wide range of people—industry, trade unions, education, banks, insurance, local government and voluntary groups.
It was rather sour of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the earlier phase of
282
his approach to the subject to describe this coming together of such a wide range of interests as a publicity stunt and gimmick. Anyone who was there, I think, was struck by the very practical and serious concern about crime and the need for a response by all sections of society. If it is true, as I read from the press, that the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition are changing their tune about crime prevention, I think that we on this side of the House can very reasonably say, "Welcome aboard; better late than never".
Much work has flowed from the seminar at No. 10. It has been carried forward by many of the organisations that attended. To keep up the momentum, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited me to hold a second seminar at 10 Downing street on 23 June to take stock of the progress that has been made. We shall see where any obstacles to progress exist, and consider how to remove them. The scale of the activities already under way is impressive.
Mr. Clive Soley: I am getting a little tired of the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, because we were in the crime prevention argument long before he was, and have the documents to prove it. More importantly, will the right hon. Gentleman be going to that second seminar with the intention of asking the Prime Minister for the money that even they in the document produced before December agreed was necessary to target-harden the 1·25 million vulnerable properties in the country?
Mr. Hurd: I have listed all the different areas from which crime prevention schemes can draw their resources from the taxpayer. I have also dealt with the suggestion that everybody—duke or dustman—should get a handout from the Government, regardless of need, practicality or expense, to make their homes safer. I leave the House to judge between those two approaches. Our approach, which involves substantial sums of public money but is carefully worked out and targeted, is very much preferable to what we have so far heard—the hon. Gentleman may be able to refine it—from the Opposition.
I was going to refer to the overall direction of this multitude of efforts, mainly spontaneous, but obviously requiring some co-ordination so that good practice can be spread. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has taken the chair at a newly-established ministerial group on crime prevention which consists of Ministers and officials from 12 Government Departments. It has been established for just about a month, and has already held two good meetings.
I accept, of course, that the main work going on in this field so far has been on the easier side of the crime question. Violent crime accounts for only some 3 per cent. of total offences, but it is violent crime that causes the greatest public concern.
Mr. David Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the banning or licensing of the sale of crossbows would have a great effect on the prevention of violent crime?
Mr. Hurd: We are looking at crossbows and airguns because the two have some similarities. They both have quite legitimate followers. Crossbows, as my hon. Friend probably knows, are used in a growing number of perfectly legitimate sporting clubs. I am anxious to find an answer

283
to this which does not involve the police in a whole new layer of bureaucracy through a licensing system but which meets the concern that my hon. Friend is not alone in expressing. We are, as it were, looking at this from the beginning, and it will not be long before we can reach some conclusion.
The clear-up rates for offences of violence against the person and sexual offences remain high, I am glad to say, at 73 per cent. and 72 per cent. respectively. I acknowledge that we have a long way to go before our crime prevention strategy is sufficiently developed to deal with crimes of violence. Much of the action is under way. For example, in designing estates, architects and developers need to consider, among other things, the security of those who will live there. They have to avoid, for example, creating great pools of darkness and opportunities for crime as a result of the street lighting being in the wrong place.
A study in Newcastle has shown that phasing pub closing hours and making more transport available at the crucial time when they close in itself can reduce the violence in city centres. The Department of Transport is about to produce proposals on measures to prevent assaults on bus crews. At the Prime Minister's seminar the unions concerned were particularly anxious to emphasise that point to us. Good progress is being made with a study of crime on the London Underground. A team drawn from the Department of Transport, London Regional Transport, the Home Office, British Transport police and the Metropolitan police are looking at it.
Other initiatives in this area of violent crime will be developed throught the working groups chaired by people from outside the realms of officialdom. They are studying commercial robbery and violence associated with pubs, and will report later this year. I list these as important contributions, although I accept that they are only a beginning. Crime will not be beaten by rhetoric, and neither my predecessor nor I has ever pretended otherwise. It will be edged back only by a considered and comprehensive strategy. The other elements of that strategy—the police, the powers of the courts, the prisons and victim support—will be covered in the House on other days, and I will not go into those in detail.
I should like to stress the broad scope of work needed if crime prevention is to be effective. We must concentrate not just on fear of the law but on the strength of the values and standards of behaviour that hold society together. Crime prevention is about a lot more than locks and bolts.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On the subject of victim support, is the Home Secretary satisfied with the progress that is being made in the criminal investigation of rape, particularly the interviewing of the victims by police officers?
Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the police have given a great deal of thought to that. In the Metropolitan area, where the problem is deepest, they have transformed the way in which they interview rape victims. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, while that transformation may increase the number of rapes recorded by the police, it will transform the willingness of victims to come forward and, therefore, the ability of the police to catch rapists. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The psychological approach of the police to
284
the rape victim has turned out to be of crucial importance. The police realise that and have been adapting their approach accordingly.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the anonymity of the rapist? Has the Home Office now agreed to bring forward legislation to remove that anonymity?
Mr. Hurd: We are still considering exactly how to do that. The exchanges in the House in the past on that point showed that, on the whole, the House felt that a mistake had been made in earlier legislation which should be corrected. I should prefer it if my hon. Friend did not press that point today. I shall make sure that, before long, the House is informed of how we mean to proceed.
No Government have the power to defeat crime singlehanded. We can ensure that the various parts of the criminal justice system are in good repair and well resourced. We have a duty to seek to create a climate that rejects crime and in which individual discipline and responsibility are emphasised. That duty is shared by everyone in the House and by all responsible politicians. That leads me to a matter which I know some right hon. and hon. Members want to raise during the debate.
The responsibility for creating a climate that rejects violence extends to offences committed in situations of mass disorder. There have been a number of occasions in recent years when industrial disputes have degenerated into disorder. The miners' strike provides an example. More recently, there has been and continues to be the dispute at Wapping. Over 350,000 police man hours have been absorbed at Wapping. Last Saturday over 1,700 police officers had to be made available. Police operations on that scale inevitably affect the service that the police are able to provide elsewhere.
We all know that passions can run high in industrial disputes. The role of the police is to prevent and deal with breaches of the peace and criminal offences, and to uphold the rights and safety of those threatened by intimidation. They are not there to take one side or the other in an industrial dispute. The Metropolitan police are neither pro-Murdoch nor anti-Murdoch. It is not their job to be either. If complaints are made against the police, Parliament has provided the means for those complaints to be investigated and dealt with.
Several distingushed Labour Members from the trade union group of Members of Parliament came to see me three weeks ago about the police operation at Wapping. We had a good discussion, and they presented their concerns in a balanced way. I pursued their concerns with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and on 2 May wrote to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who led that delegation. I have told him of my intention, in view of the public interest, to put a copy of my reply in the Library, because the letter gives a clear analysis of how the commissioner told me he is handling the police operation and the pattern of response to violence that he believes is necessary. It is right for police action to come under careful scrutiny in that way. However, phrases that I have read in the past few days such as "police riot" or, as one hon. Member did outside the House, accusing the police of being
"all that is rotten in our society"
are not only untrue but deeply offensive, not least to the 175 police officers who suffered injuries last Saturday.

285
It is right for the police to keep their operations under continuing review. It is right for those who have complaints about the actions of police officers to use the remedy that Parliament has provided for that purpose. But it is also right for the trade unions themselves to look again at what is being done in their name. Within the trade union movement there is a long and honourable tradition of peaceful protest and action within the law. No one doubts the strength of feeling of the print workers involved in the dispute with News International. I hope that a settlement of that dispute can soon be reached. But it is clear, and it is not denied, that those demonstrations and pickets are attracting to the scene people who are prepared to resort to violence and who come intending violence. Disorder of the sort that we have seen in recent weeks does no credit to the cause of the print workers. It does not enhance their public support. Therefore, I hope that the union leaders will reconsider their tactics and seek to maintain their arguments and attempts at persuasion in ways that are less likely to cause disorder.
At the request of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), my hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation from the union at the Home Office today. As a result, I understand that there will be a meeting between the print union leaders and the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police to discuss the future handling of affairs at Wapping. I welcome that development. It is exactly the way in which those matters should be handled.
Mr. Tony Benn: In what I say, I am not seeking to argue the case of what happened on Saturday night from the point of view of someone who was there throughout. The police say that 175 policemen were injured, 1,700 police were involved, there were 10,000 demonstrators, which is generally agreed, and on the other side there were 83 casualties, some of which were serious. That occurred within two miles of the Palace of Westminster. The Home Secretary is the responsible Minister. Will he explain why he did not come at once to the House and make a statement, when he would be held answerable for the actions of the police there? The responsibility rests first with the commissioner and then with the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman abdicated his duty to the police as well as the people of London by failing to make it clear to the House of Commons what. in his opinion, happened, so that hon. Members could say what they had seen on that site that night.
Mr. Hurd: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. He and I have differing views about how the responsibility for the policing of London should be organised. Although I think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to change it, the present position is that the commissioner has operational independence. I have explained to the House rather carefully this afternoon the steps that I have taken as a result of representations that I have received to satisfy myself about the nature of the policing of the operation.
I have also taken advantage of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in an exchange with Mr. Speaker, asked whether it would be in order for him to raise the matter in the debate. That was a useful and entirely proper move on his part. I have tried to respond to it in what I have said. Late yesterday evening, I received from the right hon.
286
Gentleman a list of detailed questions about the injuries sustained by the police at Wapping. I had hoped to have the full answers for the right hon. Gentleman in time for the debate, but the necessary research is still proceeding. I shall let him have those answers as soon as I can.
I believe that the desire to see an improvement in the way in which we deal with crime and law and order is so deep-rooted among our constituents and of such fundamental importance to our society that the greater agreement we can sustain in the House, the better our constituents will be served, provided that that agreement is based on support for a disciplined police force and for the law. I hope very much that, despite the disagreements that will occur from time to time on particular matters, we can keep that aim in view.
The Labour party has not sustained that claim by the way in which its Members have cast their votes on recent legislative proposals such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Bill or. most important of all, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. The Labour party has sought to deprive not just me or the Government but the police of a tool for dealing with terrorism which I regard, unfortunately, as essential. As the right hon. Member for Gorton is not here, I shall refrain from developing that point with illustrations of his recent activities or lack of activities, but I hope that the Labour party will give a clear lead in this matter and will either discipline or disown those within its ranks who continually obstruct and vilify the police, all too often at the ratepayers' expense.
The nation has a right to expect a clear stance on this issue from hon. Members on both sides of the House. All responsible parties in Parliament have a contribution to make to buttressing the rule of law. For our part, we are pursuing and intend to continue an honest, vigorous and coherent policy for the protection of the public, and in this, crime prevention—the main subject of the debate—forms an important part.
5.20 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I regret that the debate was not held a couple of days earlier partly because I could be in Hammersmith getting rid of that wretched combination of Liberals and Tories who have been ripping apart the social fabric of Hammersmith in much the same way as the Government are ripping apart the social fabric of the nation. It would also have given the people an opportunity to judge the Government's words by their actions on crime prevention, but unfortunately the debate will not reach the newspapers until after people have voted. If people wish to do one small thing today to help prevent crime, they could make sure that they vote Labour and do not elect Tory administrations, because the Government have done more to increase the crime rate than any recent Government.
The Government came to office on a "get tough'' policy, and they got tough. We send more people to prison than does any other country in western Europe except Turkey. We have more young people in prison than any country in western Europe except Turkey. We now have a faster rising crime rate than we have had for years. In addition, we have had riots in our streets of a nature, frequency and intensity that we have not seen for at least 100 years and probably 150 years. Now we even have riots in prisons. This is supposed to be a successful policy.

287
The Government's failure on crime prevention is almost as great as their failure on unemployment. In terms of law and order, they have been disastrous for the British people. We heard the Home Secretary say in his concluding remarks, "Let us keep law and order out of politics." That is an amazing change from 1979, when the Conservative party put full-page advertisements in the newspapers backing the Police Federation and saying that there would be a vote on capital punishment. The previous Home Secretary was not sure whether he was in favour of capital punishment. He wanted to hang terrorists, but no one else. What an abysmal, miserable record. The "get tough", simplistic approach did not work, could not work, and was bound to produce such a disastrous failure because the Government linked it with other deadly policies which ripped apart our social fabric.
Perhaps we should consider why the increase in crime has been so rapid, especially under this Government, but under several Governments in recent years. The first cause, which applies to all Governments since the 1960s, has been the move from the cities back to the country. It would take too long to develop that argument in detail. Anyone who wishes to examine the evidence should read the reports from the metropolitan counties, universities and Government Departments, which show how the move from the inner cities has distorted their population by concentrating there people who are either affluent and tending to move through or those who have severe problems, especially in housing.
Bad housing has much to do with crime, not just because of target hardening but because of the distribution of the population. If people cannot afford to buy and are unable to rent in either the private or public sectors, they are squeezed to the wall in the inner cities. For many years, there has been a major problem in our inner cities, and it would have been a law and order problem for any Government. I absolve the Government, to some extent, in that area, although they have made the position much worse.
The Government have introduced a new factor called economic distress. In even finer terms, it is called mass unemployment and especially youth unemployment. At times of economic distress, people become more authoritarian and more frightened and the community begins to break down. That did not happen in quite the same way in the 1930s for several reasons, which I should be happy to discuss if the Minister wished to pursue it. It has happened dramatically recently in our inner cities and the Goverment made it far worse by pulling off the sticking plaster of public expenditure, which at least gave some opportunity to the community to hold together the community links. The one sure way of preventing crime is to ensure that the community fabric—the links between groups and individuals in the community—is strong, good and growing. That cannot be the case at times of mass unemployment or when the Government are cutting public expenditure, thus aggravating the lack of housing and leisure and educational activities that normally exist in any community.
The Government introduced another all-important factor. They pushed young people, many of whom had been unemployed for many years, on the margins of relevance. The problem for hon. Members on both sides of the House is that many youngsters, black and white,
288
employed and unemployed, consider places such as Parliament to be irrelevant to their needs because we do not address their problems. At times of mass unemployment, they turn to what is called the black economy. I prefer to call it the alternative economy precisely because that is what it is—an alternative to living on the dole. It ranges from doing some work on the side while collecting unemployment benefit to running drugs. The latter is a good way of obtaining money and they can use the drugs to deal with their inner feelings of deprivation, depression and anxiety.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. Can he provide any evidence that those who are unemployed commit more crimes than those who are in work? I have been unable to find that statistical correlation. I do not believe that it exists.
Mr. Soley: There is some evidence of a connection between youth unemployment and crime. It is hard to prove a direct link, and I do not argue that such a direct link exists—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would listen, they might understand the force of my argument even if they do not agree with it. I said that long-term youth unemployment pushes young people into activities that are on the margins of the law. That is when they become a problem to the rest of the community in public order terms. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will bear with me for a moment—he will know the direction of my thoughts—he will see what I mean.
In such an explosive atmosphere in our inner cities, all that is needed to trigger anger is insensitive, bad or grossly mistaken policing. The Government have never addressed that problem seriously. Before I mention what we must do about the problem, I wish to discuss policing. The Home Secretary rightly mentioned Wapping. One or two hotheads in the Conservative party were quick to condemn the demonstrators as a crowd of hooligans. The Home Secretary slipped into the trap of calling it mass disorder when what happened was rather different. It is worth saying to those hot heads on the other side of the House who sought to condemn that, before they condemn, they should talk to people on all sides of the dispute and, if possible, be present at any demonstrations. I recognise that not everyone can be present on such occasions. I have been to the printing plant at Wapping twice. I was there for about six hours three weeks ago. On the night of 3 May, I was there for another six hours. I shall describe my view of the incident.
At 11 pm on Saturday 3 May, at the police station in Leman street, I saw the police video of the outbreak of trouble at Wapping. I met and talked to most of the senior police officers involved. I also saw police, demonstrators and the ambulancemen outside News International between midnight and 4 am. The video showed about six people throwing objects which might have been staves, bricks and smoke bombs, from behind a line of demonstrators. One or two police officers collapsed, possibly as a result of the impact of the missiles or the pressure of the crowd. The police clearly had a problem at that stage. It was then that the mounted police officers charged the crowd. The video did not show what happened afterwards, as the events took place outside the range of the camera.

289
However, on speaking to police officers, demonstrators, trade union officials and Members of Parliament who were present, I reached the following conclusions: a small number of people, possibly acting together and possibly acting with the intention of making the police attack demonstrators, threw missiles in an attack on the police which caused an immediate and serious public order problem for the police. The action by the police was seen universally as a gross over-reaction by the demonstrators, most of whom felt that they had been attacked and some of whom fought back. If the group of people who threw missiles had the intention of creating hostility between police and demonstrators, they were successful.
The trade union leaders concerned have made it clear that they utterly condemn any missile throwing or attacks on the police. The police stated that the trade union leadership had been very responsible and that the mass of demonstrators—I direct those remaks to the Home Secretary', in view of the words that he chose to use—were exercising their rights peacefully. Once the police charge had taken place, it seems that events got out of control. Officers and demonstrators were fighting and getting injured as a result of the actions of a handful of people who had initiated the trouble.
Once fighting starts, it is difficult to stop it. One police officer described how, even though he was in full uniform and was carrying a stretcher, he was injured by another police officer running back from the crowd in an emotional state and striking him with a truncheon. That is a classic example of the way in which events get out of hand and how the behaviour of individuals can become irrational and dangerous.
We must do everything possible to prevent such an incident from happening again. Although each individual is and must be responsible for his own behaviour, we cannot condemn demonstrators or police officers without taking into account the circumstances at the time.
Mr. John Wheeler
rose——
Mr. Soley: In view of those factors, I have, with the full support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, asked for a meeting with the Home Secretary at which I shall press for a review of the lessons to be learnt and of police tactics. At the very least, there is a case for a warning to be given before a mounted police charge and a need to ensure that any use of riot police is limited to the absolute minimum.
I emphasise that other options were available that night. That is one of the matters that I wish to discuss with the Home Secretary. It has been established that many officers were not wearing numbers on their overalls. The Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw)—is present in the Chamber. When the Public Order Bill was before the House, he indicated that he would ensure that all officers had numbers on their overalls. The problem put to me by the senior officer concerned was that, because many pairs of overalls were handed out at Wapping, numbers could not be put on them. I do not accept that we cannot get around that problem. I give the Minister notice of that point. He may wish to pursue it on a future occasion.
Mr. Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman has given an assessment of events on that unfortunate day, but it seemed
290
to be almost an excuse—I hesitate to say, "justification". Will he say, quite categorically. that he condemns all violence without any excuse at all'
Mr. Soley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard me. I think that he was trying to intervene when I said that each individual is and must be responsible for his own behaviour. We cannot condemn demonstrators or police officers without taking into account the circumstances at the time. I do not have any difficulty in saying to the hon. Gentleman that I condemn the use of violence. What the hon. Gentleman has to take on board is that every human being will resort to violence in certain circumstances. As a former prison governor and magistrate, the hon. Gentleman knows that allowances must be made according to the circumstances at the time. A magistrate is expected to do that. If he did not do so, he would be failing in his job.
If I condemned, as the hon. Gentleman wants me to do, for example, the police officer who hit another police officer during the incident at Wapping, I would be failing to understand the emotional pressure under which that man was at the time. We must understand that. We can say as many times as we like that we condemn violence from wherever it comes. I have no problem in saying that. Unless one tries to understand what happened and tries to prevent it from happening again, one is exercising one's conscience. It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to do that, because he was not one of those injured. It is cheap to try to pretend that that does not matter; it does, and it makes a world of difference. Let us keep that in perspective when we discuss the issue.
I shall continue to consider the police aspect because it is linked with crime prevention. It is essential to give much more attention to the police than has been given in recent times. The Government have tried to deal with a law and order problem—I use a slightly different phrase from that used by the Prime Minister—by throwing police officers at it. In this country, there is about one police officer for every 394 citizens. Twenty years ago, there was about one police officer for every 602 citizens. Even if 50 per cent. of the population were police officers, the problems would not be solved. We must recognise that there is a crime prevention problem.
Labour Members have been saying for a long time that. for a number of reasons, we want an elected police authority. We believe that it is essential not only to have the police under democratic control—anyone who does not believe in democratic control had better say what he does believe in, because we would have a police state—but to have the police and the local community work closely together to carry out good crime prevention.
Magistrates should not be members of an elected police authority. Magistrates were put on in the first place, 100 years ago, interestingly and relevantly enough, only because the powers that be at the time thought that the elected authority did not have enough political experience. The duty of magistrates is to administer the law. They should not be involved in policing the law and should not be dragged into party political argument on the authority. The authority's duty must be to enforce the law. The minimum standards required would be laid down by the Home Office and there would be a strengthened police inspectorate. That is part of the Labour party's policy. That is a necessary way to go. We also need an independent police complaints authority.

291
I would be remiss if I did not give a little more thought than the Home Secretary did to the issue of police training. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the subject briefly. Let us recognise what we are doing. We are recruiting police officers in their teens, at times, giving them about 20 weeks basic training, a year or two's probationary training on the job—as the Home Secretary knows, supervision is very varied—and asking them to police our inner cities. The recruitment pattern shows that about 80 per cent. of the Metropolitan police in London are recruited from outside London. London is not completely untypical of the rest of the country, but the position is probably more severe in London.
Mr. Wheeler: It has always been like that.
Mr. Soley: Of course it has, but that does not make it desirable. We are putting young people with minimal experience and training on the streets of our inner cities in the explosive political and economic atmosphere of our times. That is what is so damaging. That is why I say that, as a minimum, we should aim to increase police training to six months and, eventually, to two years. It is unfair to the police to make them police such areas with only that sort of training.
We need to open up police training so that it takes place not just in police training establishments. Those establishments are important, but, as a number of hon. Members know, and as the Home Secretary probably knows better than most following the Islington case, the problems of police corruption are magnified a hundred times because other police officers cover up for those involved. The public can accept that there are some bad apples in the barrel, but they are right not to accept it when other police officers say nothing about those bad apples, whether it is the bad apple of corruption, of beating people up in the streets, or of racism. We must create in the police force an atmosphere that gives it a high professional status, values and moral standards which will not place the Home Secretary in the invidious position in which he found himself in the Islington case. We can do that partly by changing the nature and extent of police training.
More must be done about community policing. The Home Secretary said that it was necessary to have police officers on the streets, and he was right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will direct a little more of his attention to the schemes put forward by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the all-party penal policy group on alternatives such as safe neighbourhood units and priority estate projects. To do that, we need community police officers who stay in the area. The link between an area, the people in it and the elected representatives is vital. At the moment, police officers do not stay in the area because the Government, who are supposed to care so much for police officers, have never thought it necessary, despite the breakdown in law and order in recent years, to negotiate with the Police Federation on the establishment of a proper career structure for community police officers which would give them a financial and professional reward for staying in the job and in that place and for developing the links with the community that are necessary for good crime prevention.
We should consider also the support that we give the police and their families when members of the police force are killed or injured. I am not satisfied at all with the
292
Government's response on the Public Order Bill when they chucked out our amendment which proposed to set up a way to compensate police officers, their relatives and families when police were killed or injured in the course of their duty. The police and their families still have to rely on the complete inadequacy of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and on private insurance.
So much more is linked with the breakdown in law and order under the Government that we could spend a great deal of time considering it, but I must address myself also to crime prevention and to victim support. The Labour party has a long history of supporting crime prevention policies. I should be the first to say that the Labour party has not always described those policies in that way. We have done so only in the past five years. I can say that confidently, because I know, as the former chairman of the Labour Campaign for Criminal Justice, that we were putting forward those policies five years ago. They have been our policies in at least the last two Labour party conferences. I do not want the Home Secretary to pretend that we have stolen his clothes. The previous Home Secretary did nothing about this. He merely boasted about his ability to use the police as a way of enforcing the Government's industrial relations policy, and that is what he did. He left it to this Home Secretary to pick up the bits. The right hon. Gentleman suddenly had to start talking about crime prevention when the Government found only how disastrously they were beginning to lose an argument that they thought they had in their pockets.
I intervened during the Home Secretary's speech, because I knew that the Government would not put their money where their mouth was when it came to crime prevention. The Prime Minister's statement from No. 10 Downing street about that charade of a conference on crime prevention contained no significant mention of money. The Home Secretary referred to the Hammersmith and Fulham scheme in my area. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I support it and that it will continue to be supported when Labour wins the council election today. However, funding for the scheme is still grossly inadequate. It is £50 a council flat. It is interesting that the Home Office does not fund such schemes. It wants the Department of the Environment to do so. The Home Secretary runs around saying, "Fund all these schemes", but we are not told from where all the money will come. The Department of the Environment goes around rate capping local authorities, cutting their money and saying to the Home Office, "We shall not do that." Unless the Home Secretary takes on board some of the responsibility, his desire for good works will be undone by other Ministers. The Government are not putting their money where their mouth is.
The Home Secretary asked me about the money for these measures. The Government constantly duck the fact that their economic policies have been a disastrous failure. If more is done to repair and renovate our older public and private properties, we decrease the chances of burglary. If we spend more on public lighting, clearing up graffiti and stopping vandalism, we do something to prevent crime and, more importantly, we expand that part of the economy that does not suck in imports. The Government are trying to get around such problems by giving tax handouts to the rich which are spent on imports which do not help in this country. We need to expand those aspects

293
that do not suck in imports and cause other problems. It is precisely those aspects that we can expand without too much difficulty.
The Government have done much damage with respect to crime prevention by cutting employment in the public sector. The Home Secretary will know from NACRO research that the number of fights on one-person operated buses is greater than on two-person operated buses.
We know that cutting the number of caretakers, as the Government and numerous Conservative councils have done, results in increased vandalism and crime. It is not enough to put in entryphone systems in some blocks of flats, because they are simply vandalised or left open for a variety of reasons. We need resident caretakers. The NACRO survey and the all-party penal policy group have made that clear. Do the Government want to come up with such a policy? No way. Even more important is the fact that they have cut back. That is one way in which they have made the problems worse. That is what I mean when I use the shorthand term of "tearing apart the social fabric" and refer to undermining and destabilising the community which are important considerations in crime prevention. NACRO has referred to many of those situational and social policies.
We cannot talk effectively about crime prevention if families with young children are put into high-rise flats, cuts are made in one o'clock clubs and nursery education and education generally is undervalued. The result is that children either stay in the flats all day, causing increased family tension, or play outside, often unsupervised, and quickly drift into vandalism and crime. It is no good coming along afterwards to probation officers, teachers and social workers and asking them to pick up the pieces. To some extent, the pieces can be picked up; but the problems need never have happened in the first place. The Government, especially the chairman of the Conservative party, who have spent so much time blaming teachers and parents for the crime wave, should look at what they have done in tearing apart the fabric of society.
Recently, the Government have taken one step which I guarantee will do more to increase crime than any other single factor of its type, although I am not saying that crime will increase just because of it. I refer to the board and lodging allowance. The Home Office study and virtually every other study demonstrates clearly that there is a link between homelessness, drug addiction, alcohol abuse and crime. By changing the board and lodging allowance, the Government have increased the crime rate and turned more young people to alcohol and drug abuse and to crime.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Where is the evidence?
Mr. Soley: The evidence is in two Home Office research papers.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Yes.
Mr. Soley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has remembered it now. The link is very clear, and it should not surprise him. What does a young person do if, after six weeks, he is turned out of the place where he is staying? He might find accommodation on the floor of a friend's flat, or in a hostel, or he might turn to drink or drugs. That is an easy way to blot out the problem and the pain. It might also be a way of getting money. Anybody who does not think this through does not deserve to be considering crime prevention.
294
I have already written to the Home Secretary about firearms. Does the Home Secretary intend to make a statement to the House about the work of the committee that investigates the use of firearms by the police? I sent evidence to that committee. There is a strong case for setting up a committee of the type that I described in my evidence to consider the availability and the licensing of firearms. I am not convinced that the police are the best authority to deal with licensing. There is a strong case for the creation of a separate licensing authority The paramilitary training that is now becoming so popular also needs to be investigated. This is an important area, to which much more attention must be given.
What this country is desperately crying out for—the Labour party has been putting this policy before the electorate for a number of years—is a well-resourced crime prevention and victim support scheme. A criminal justice system is needed that takes more account of the victim and of those who are brought into contact with the criminal justice system, often as witnesses. Alienation from that system and from the police is dangerously high. A proper system of police accountability is needed in which the police and the public have confidence. A fully independent police complaints authority is also needed.
A few years ago the Government were baying, at their highest level of decibels, that this was unacceptable. The Police Federation also said that it was unacceptable. However, the Police Federation is now 100 per cent. with the Labour party. It wants a fully independent police complaints authority for precisely the same reasons as the Labour party. It knows that the public will not have confidence in anything other than a properly accountable system. Significant progress could then be made.
I remind the House of the programme "Newsnight" that was shown last night. A police officer was interviewed. He said that as the crime rate is so high in Notting Hill he is being asked by the residents to do more about it. That sums up the problem. As the crime rate continues to increase in the inner city areas, various groups are found to be most vulnerable to certain types of policing. At the same time, the public want something to be done about crime. They shout, "Do something about crime". Understandably, therefore, the police feel that they are under pressure to do something about it.
The vast majority of crimes are cleared up after information has been given by the public to the police. When the relationship between the police and the public breaks down, the problem grows worse. When the police are under pressure to do something about crime they fall back on two measures that are likely to make it worse. They rely upon stop and search. They also rely upon breaking into houses and flats in order to get the evidence that they believe is there. In many cases, that triggers off the problems in our inner cities. The police find that they are screwing down the lid on a socially explosive situation.
The police are being used by the Government. I emphasise that the police are being used by the Government to deal with industrial relations and public order. If that continues, the police will continue to give the bird to the Home Secretary when he speaks to them. They have got wise to the way in which they have been used by this Government—hence the article in the Police Federation's magazine during the miners' strike which pointed out that the police must ask themselves whether they are being used to maintain law and order or whether they were being used by the Government to enforce their

295
industrial relations policy. That was a good question to ask. The Government have never used their industrial relations legislation, even though they said they would do so
This Government's policy on law and order has been a disastrous failure. They know from the opinion polls and also from the Fulham by-election, where we were neck and neck with them, that they are losing this argument. Soon we shall be so far in front of the Government that they will not know what the argument was about. It is no use the Government coming crying to me about taking law and order out of politics. They have put that issue well and truly into politics. The Government will have to carry the can for their policy.
5.54 pm
Mr. John Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his speech and for his description of what the Government are doing. I thank him in particular for the advancement in the status of the post at the crime prevention centre at Stafford from the rank of chief superintendent to that of assistant chief constable. My right hon. Friend knows that I have advocated that development for a very long time in order to enhance the status of crime prevention within the police service. It is a most welcome development.
For many people, the fear of crime, if not the actuality of it, is a major concern. It is not surprising, therefore, that the public relations efforts of the Labour party are now geared to attracting the sympathy of the public, arising from their concern. But has the leopard changed its spots?
When the Labour party was last in government, its treatment of the police service and the criminal justice system was scandalous. Police morale over pay and conditions hit rock bottom. There was even talk of a police strike in 1977. Police morale was so low that 9,000 men left the service. In May 1979, force strengths in England and Wales were 7,710 below establishment. This included a shortfall of 16 per cent. in the Metropolitan police. The "bobby" disappeared from the beat and the police took to Panda cars because of their lack of manpower. That was the record of the Opposition when in government.
We are now told that the Labour party wishes to see the "bobby" return to the beat, but this is purely PR propaganda designed to pacify the electorate, or does it have any basis of reality? The intention of the Labour party to interfere with the police remains as strong as ever.
In 1981, under the title of "A Socialist Policy for the GLC", the London Labour party proposed that there should be a police authority in London consisting solely of elected members to have control over the Metropolitan and City of London police forces. It was proposed that this authority would have power to survey day-to-day police operations, allocate financial resources and appoint officers to the rank of chief superintendent and above. The authority would work in close liaison with Scotland Yard and would have overriding control of the capital's police recruitment training and contribution of mutual aid from one district to another. The House may consider that that was a very sinister proposal. In other words, there would be total political control of police operations, and political decisions would be made as to which demonstrations were to be controlled through policing and, indeed, which crimes were to be investigated, or not, as the case may be.
296
In those awful, corrupt years of the Labour party's control of the GLC from 1981 to 1986, millions of pounds of ratepayers' money were spent on anti-police propaganda. I shall give to the House but a few examples of this lavish expenditure. The Newham monitoring project received £240,755. The so-called Haringey independent police committee received £214,245. Police Accountability for Community Enlightenment, Islington—whatever that may be—received a modest £188,424. There are many other examples.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend recall the GLC video called, "Policing London" which cost the ratepayers £35,000? It was geared towards schoolchildren and incited violence. It ended with the words, "Communities must rebel."
Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He draws attention to a most scandalous piece of publicity. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) claimed that he is concerned about crime prevention. However, that belies the actuality of what the Labour party has done when it has been in power.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has made an especially shabby point. I think we should be more precise and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has actually seen the video. The words which the hon. Gentleman referred to were those used by a poet in the video. The words came from a poem which was read out by one person who was a member of that community. To suggest, therefore, that the GLC thought that the community should rebel is like saying that because Shakespeare put the words:
"To be or not to be"
into the mouth of Hamlet, Shakespeare was toying with the idea of becoming an existentialist.
Mr. Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman should not deceive the House on that point. He knows perfectly well why the video was crafted and presented in the way that it was. The video was a deliberate attack on the Metropolitan police and an incitement to young people to rebel against the police.
It might be claimed that the video and the other expenditure to which I have referred were merely the isolated work of the London Labour party and that such actions are untypical of Labour party policy. However, a motion was passed at the 1985 Labour party conference which sought to put the police and the courts under more direct political control. The motion stated that the new-styled democratic control—whatever that might mean—would have the
"authority to influence and direct local policing policy and practice."
That is a direct interference in the operational duties of the police. The Labour party cannot evade the consequences of that resolution.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman does not like democracy.
Mr. Wheeler: I would like to consider the work of that conference in detail. One delegate claimed, and again I quote from the record, that the police
"have become the enemy in whole areas."
That remark was greeted with sustained applause. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) accused some chief constables of making "party political interventions." The right hon. Member for Gorton

297
appeared to side with those in the conference who were against the police. The evidence of the Labour party's thinking about the police is limitless in its venom. Mr. Kenneth Livingstone was reported in the Daily Mail on 3 March 1984 as saying:
"I know a large proportion of the metropolitan police is clearly racist and should be pensioned off".
Louise Christian of the Streatham Labour party, and a member of the former GLC police committee, said at the party conference in 1984:
"You cannot condemn all violence without fear or favour, because the violence of the State is not comparable to the attempts of the provoked to fight back…Mr. Kinnock said that the police are the meat in the sandwich. They are the salmonella poisoning in the sandwich. Neil says that you should not break the law, because the Labour party needs legality. As a lawyer I say to you it is absolute rubbish."
Some lawyer! That seems to sum up the true thinking of the Labour party as against its PR efforts of today.
If the Labour party is really to convince the British public that it now believes in a citizen police force working with the community to prevent crime and offences, it will have to be more convincing. For example, the Labour party has consistently voted against the annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Yet the evidence from the police is that that Act greatly contributed to preventing terrorist acts in London during the summer of 1985.
If the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) is to repeal that Act, he must answer four key questions: will he allow unopposed membership of the provisional IRA and/or the Irish National Liberation Army? Will he permit displays of support for such groups in public in the cities of the United Kingdom? Will he allow contributions towards acts of terrorism? Will he regard the failure to disclose information about terrorism as no longer an offence?
These days, the whole country has been appalled at the extent of the premeditated and organised violence at Wapping to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred. The hon. Member for Hammersmith gave his version of the events at Wapping. However, no one can doubt the degree of organisation behind that violence, nor the determination to attack the police. Many of us saw the newsreels on televison and witnessed what happened. Yet the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said in an interview on a news programme on 4 May that the police were "drunken thugs". So much for the attitude of the Labour party. What matters to the British people is the growth in crime and the strategy for dealing with it.
The Government have rightly recognised that since 95 per cent. of all crime relates to property and roughly breaks down into the categories of 30 per cent. auto crime—thefts of or from motor vehicles—25 per cent. burglary and the rest minor thefts and vandalism, any strategy for the containment of crime must involve the whole community, local authorities and Government Departments. It is nonsense to pretend that that overwhelming amount of property crime can be stopped only by the police and courts.
The greatest mistake this century has been to suppose that the responsibility for crime was solely a matter for the police and the courts. We all welcome the return of the police officer on the beat. The uniformed police officer patrolling on foot is a contact point and a reassurance. I
298
do not underestimate the value of that exercise, yet the overwhelming bulk of crime takes place on private property out of sight and reach of the public.
One piece of research has shown that a patrolling police officer would stumble on a crime being committed only once in 15 years. Thus, the strategy of the Government to promote the concept of crime prevention involving the whole community must be right.
Of course, the Opposition seek to make political capital out of the reported rising crime rates. It must be said firmly that the problem of property crime affects all western countries. We have the lowest crime rate for violence among western countries and most of our crime—95 per cent.—relates to property. It is also clear why the crime problem predominantly relates to property.
In 1948 there were 2 million private cars licensed for use in the United Kingdom. By 1978 that figure had reached 14·5 million. Today there are more than 17·25 million. The crime statistics show that the incidence of auto crime exactly matches the growth and availability of the motor vehicle.
The same is true of property crime, and especially of residential burglary. In 1948, at current prices, the people of Britain had £8·7 billion available as personal disposable income. In 1978 they had just over £114 billion and today they have more than £237 billion. The growth in burglary rates exactly matches the growth in the goods and money available in people's homes to steal.
It is also interesting to consider who commits crime. Young males, aged between 10 and 17—and many of these are not close to employable age—are disproportionately responsible for the amount of crime committed. Fifteen is the peak age for offenders among boys and some 30 per cent. of persons found guilty of or cautioned for indictable offences in 1984 were in the 10 to 17 year age bracket. If we add on the 24 per cent. who commit crimes between the ages of 17 and 21. we find that more than half of those brought before the courts were aged between 10 and 21.
Property crime is essentially committed by young men, often immature, who see the opportunity for the commission of the offence and the certainty that they will not be caught. It is also a fact that in inner city areas, particularly in inner London, the truancy rate for boys in the 14 to 15-year-old group can vary between 20 and 30 per cent. In his review of the social causes of crime, the hon. Member for Hammersmith omitted that point. We must look at the role of education, and consider why it is failing those young teenagers.
Yet the opportunity to prevent crime is immense. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Home Office has established a crime prevention unit. There is a standing conference on crime prevention and a great deal of work is being done, not only to reduce the fear of crime, which is very important, but to provide ordinary people with opportunities to prevent crime. The motor manufacturers are being encouraged to design more effective crime-free cars to stop the opportunist youngster stealing from the vehicle or driving it away. After all, that accounts for 30 per cent. of our crime problem.
The neighbourhood watch schemes have captured the imagination of the public to such a degree that there is mounting evidence that, where the public work together and with the police, the number of opportunist burglaries, largely committed by teenagers in our cities, can be dramatically reduced. The Commissioner of Police of the

299
Metropolis reported that the number of burglaries had dropped by 11 per cent., from more than 109,000 in 1984 to just over 97,000 in 1985, and he readily acknowledges the joint effort made by the police, through crime prevention measures, and the public, through neighbourhood watch schemes, in achieving this desirable result.
There is, of course, much more to be done, but the welcome initiatives to which the Home Office is now committed suggest that the containment of crime is realisable. However, the reporting of crimes is likely to continue to show a rising number of offences, as more people now report offences and there are 10,000 more police officers to receive those reports. Crime prevention means encouraging the reporting of crimes that would otherwise go unrecorded.
It is sometimes thought that those who suffer most from crime are the people who live in the plush suburbs or who have evidence of wealth or consumer goods. That is not necessarily true. Following field work that was carried out in 1984, the British crime survey showed that over 45 per cent. of losses resulting from burglaries involved sums of £25 or less. Only 10 per cent. of those losses involved £500 or more.
Many hon. Members know of the distress caused to the elderly or to those on low incomes who are plagued by the teenage burglars who operate on inner city council estates. Their losses and fears are every bit as real and important to the Government and the crime prevention strategy as those who lose substantial amounts. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), has asked me, as a member of the Home Office steering committee on crime prevention, to look at the problem of residential burglary. One of the tasks of that group is to produce an inner city crime prevention package that is usable by everyone.
For example, the fitting of a decent mortice lock to a door might cost as little as £18. It would give peace of mind, as well as effective crime prevention, to many households in inner city areas. Possibly 25 per cent. of those living in inner London or other cities are drawing housing or supplementary benefit, and they are just as entitled to protection from burglary as any other group.
Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wheeler: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue, I may cover the point that he has in mind.
Ultimately, I believe that there should be a formula to provide some financial support either through the municipal landlord or the private landlord—or, indeed, the individual home owner—to enable crime prevention products to be fitted to the home. It is certainly an attractive idea. What I do not think is necessary is a wasteful blanket approach of a grant available to everybody, with the bureaucratic expense that that entails. I very much hope that the working group that I am associated with will be able to produce a formula that both the Home Office and the Department of the Environment find acceptable.
Property crime is of great concern to most people. It is preventable. Some strategies require the direct involvement of the local authority. Examples of that have already been given. Some strategies require dramatic action to be taken by local authorities, such as the removal of walkways and the creation of what are called "defensible
300
areas". All of that is achievable. But I am glad that this Government's strategy is increasingly making an impact. If the Opposition are genuine about wanting the same successes, I hope that they will change their attitude to the police and encourage the public to work with the police for the overall prevention of crime.
6.15 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for making it clear that it is in order to raise the events at Wapping in this debate. Indeed, those events have already been referred to by the Home Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
I spent four or five hours at Wapping on Saturday night, and I saw scenes taking place within two miles of the House that I have never seen before in this country and that I hope not to live to see again. Ten thousand demonstrators were there in order to greet marchers from Scotland. There were 1,700 police officers present. According to Home Office figures, there were 175 police casualties. As the Home Secretary knows, I have written to him, asking for four things: the names of the police officers injured at Wapping; the nature of their injuries; the names and addresses of the hospitals at which they were treated; and the dates on which each officer returned to duty. There were more than 80 casualties among those present at the meeting. I could list many of them, but they are recorded in the many photographs taken and in a video taken that night.
Whatever the Home Secretary may say, he is responsible for the Metropolitan police. He found it unnecessary to make a statement to the House, and has chosen instead to shield himself behind the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Kenneth Newman. If he thinks that the demand for control of the police by the London elected body is something new, I should tell him that in 1892 my grandfather moved that the police in London should be under the control of the new London county council. The reason given for opposing it then was that the Home Secretary had to preserve control over the London police because of the risk of Irish terrorism. Thus, I hope that no one tells us that demands for the democratic control of the police are a product of the hard Left or of some new breed of extremism.
I was struck by the fact that running through the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) was the fear that the people might have an opportunity to determine the nature of policing through the ballot box. I have always believed—and the GLC's abolition confirms it—that the Conservative party is afraid not of the rhetoric that may be engaged in by Socialists at public meetings but of democracy.
Like every citizen in Britain, I want a strong and effective police force. I readily agreed to give lectures at the Derbyshire police college in Butterly Park, Ripley. Those who have attended the lectures will know that I turned my mind as best I could to the way in which an effective police force could enjoy the public's confidence. But it is impossible to preserve law and order if there is the sort of suspicion between the public and the police that was released by the events at Wapping.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North seemed to think that he had just discovered that crime occurs on council estates. But I get many complaints from my constituents about the failure to provide proper local

301
policing on council estates where there are problems of vandalism and mugging. or where young people are running round out of control.
One of the reasons why the police do not police these areas properly is that they are diverting their efforts to other matters. Another reason is that local police chiefs have no responsibility to the communities they police. They do not have to take a blind bit of notice of them. They are supported in that by the hon. Member for Westminster, North, who believes that they should be wholly exempt from any democratic control. If one applied that to the Army and said, "Surely no one will say that the Army should be under democratic control," the next question would be, "Why should the Government be under democratic control?"
Mr. Wheeler rose——
Mr. Benn: I shall give way in a moment but I wish to give the full weight of my argument.
In a democracy, the police are under democratic control. It is that control which does, or should, distinguish this country from a police state. It may be that, for practical reasons and sensibly so, operational responsibilities rest with the policeman on the spot, but the use made of that discretion must be as answerable afterwards as is the Army if, under the orders of the Ministry of Defence, it engages in conflict. Just as the Civil Service, the Treasury and any other department responsible to Parliament through a Ministry has to answer for what it does, so must the police. In the absence of that, the hon. Member for Westminster, North is advocating nothing less than a police state.
Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to respond. He has totally misrepresented my position. I believe, and the law at present believes, that the police are accountable. Ultimately, the police are accountable to the Chamber. They are accountable for their actions to the courts of law and the magistrates. The police should decide their operational priorities. It is that which divides the right hon. Gentleman from me and other Conservative Members. He would wish to direct police operations.
Mr. Benn: No, that is absolutely false. I have made it clear that, for the purpose of operational activities, the police have to take decisions, but they must be answerable for what they do and they must be answerable to the people over whom they exercise their powers. To put it in a nutshell, the police are there to protect us and not to control us; they are there to defend us and not to attack us. That is the issue I wish to deal with arising from the scenes at Wapping.
I must give the House the background to what happened on Saturday night. Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who made £47 million out of News International in the past year, sacked 5,500 print workers, with no compensation whatever. Those print workers—I might add that over the years they have printed stories not very helpful to the causes which I espouse—have been treated in a shabby, rotten way. Since the decision to sack them, the print workers have been meeting outside the Wapping works. I have attended meetings there before and, on Saturday night, they planned to receive a group of marchers from all over the country who had marched through Britain telling people what Rupert Murdoch had done.
302
The marchers were given a civic send-off at Glasgow. They came through Chesterfield and I marched in with them. At Chesterfield, they were given a reception and there was a meeting in the market square the following day. The marchers arrived at Wapping on Saturday night with 10,000 people because the justice of their cause required it. When they reached Wapping they met the police.
I should like to say a word about the difference between this and the miners' strike. In the case of the miners' strike, Ministers said that the police were there to guarantee the right of people to go to work. In Wapping, the police are there to prevent 5,500 people from going to work. In the miners' strike, we were told that the dismissals were due to the fact that the pits were uneconomic, but Murdoch has made £47 million out of the labour of those whom he has sacked. The relationship of the police to the print workers is totally different from that which existed with the miners.
We now know one or two things about the police. The tactical operations manual was forced out of the police under cross-examination in the Orgreave trials. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, on 22 July last year, I asked for your consent to place this manual in the Library, which you gave. From the manual we learn what instructions are given to the police, with the authority of the Home Secretary, although the instructions were drafted by the Association of Chief Police Officers. That body has no authority whatever in this country other than the fact that it is a sort of trade union or club for chief constables.
I have explained the background for the print workers and Murdoch's background, but what was the background for the police who attended in Wapping on Saturday night? They had the tactical operations manual. Sub-heading e.deals with the functions of the mounted police which concern:
"Dispersing a crowd using impetus to create fear and a scatter effect".
Manoeuvre No. 10 states:
"Mounted officers advance on a crowd in a way indicating that they do not intend to stop".
Let us not be told that these scenes were necessarily triggered by missiles being thrown. Manoeuvre No. 10 states the instructions given to the police and we could see the police lined up outside the plant ready to follow them. Manoeuvre No. 6 refers to the short shield baton team deployed into the crowd. It states:
"They disperse the crowd and incapacitate missile throwers and ring leaders by striking in a controlled manner with batons about the arms and legs or torso so as not to cause serious injury"
Manoeuvre No. 7 states:
"This unit will initially be protected by long-shield officers or personnel carriers and on the command will run at the crowd in pairs to disperse and/or incapacitate".
These are the police instructions. There is no question about it. They were prepared by the police. The ordinary decent constables—many of whom I know—thoroughly dislike what they are asked or ordered to do. We must not let anyone say that those instructions, which were given to the police, were necessarily the wishes of the constables at Wapping on Saturday night.
Dr. Godman rose——
Mr. Benn: No, I shall not give way. This is a very important matter.
When the incidents at Wapping were raised in the House on Tuesday, the Leader of the House said that it

303
proved the value of trade union legislation. What has trade union legislation got to do with releasing mounted police into those who attend a public meeting? From the Home Secretary's language today it is implied that those people were rioting. The question of riot came up at the Orgreave trials and I saw some of that riot on television. Every one of those accused was acquitted. Why? When the police video was shown, it was seen that there were six cavalry charges before the stones were thrown.
The BBC bears a heavy responsibility in this. I heard from one of the newsroom people that the director of news on BBC television ordered those preparing that film for the night bulletin to transpose the order of the film to show the missiles and then the police charging. The police video, which was consecutive, showed a very different picture.
Sir Eldon Griffiths rose——
Mr. Benn: I shall try to give way in a moment but I want to deal with this matter because it is one of the reasons why people sitting at home, who do not know what has happened, believe what they are told. In this case it is that the charge was triggered by an attack on the police.
Mr. Hurd: The account which the right hon. Gentleman is now discrediting is the account which has just been given to us by his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend was behind the police line. He saw it from one point, but I saw it and I cling to what I saw. I arrived at about 8·30 pm, having been invited to speak at a meeting.
Mr. Soley: Perhaps I could make it quite clear that I watched the video in the police headquarters, so I saw what happened after the event.
Mr. Benn: I do not want to be involved in hearsay evidence. I was present and I saw what I saw. The Home Secretary is laughing at the injuries sustained, but he was not present and is trying to shelter behind Sir Kenneth Newman to avoid his responsibility. I saw what I saw with my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith was on site—and Rodney Bickerstaffe, the general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees, and Brenda Dean were also there.
I appealed to the crowd to write to me, and I received 70 letters this morning, which I have not had time to analyse in detail. I also have pictures showing the injuries that were sustained. One is of a photographer who was battered by the police. I have others, and I shall send them to the Home Secretary. Last night, I received a video recording taken by a unit which was on the spot. The matter must be taken seriously.
I shall describe what I saw with my own eyes. I originally positioned myself opposite the plant behind the fence. There was a puff of smoke. I thought that it was tear gas, but it might have been a smoke bomb. No missiles were being thrown. The mounted police advanced out of the plant exactly as the tactical options manual says that they should. They ran into the crowd. They were covered by riot police, who did several things. First, they ran indiscriminately into the crowd and battered people who had had nothing whatever to do with any stones that might
304
have been thrown. It is no good the Home Secretary shaking his head—I saw it with my own eyes. I shall read from only three of the 70 letters, which confirm what I am saying later.
The police did exactly what the tactical options manual said they should. They ran 20 or 30 yards, saw people standing—women, children and grandparents—turned into the crowd and attacked them with their batons. They surrounded the bus that was acting as an ambulance. One man had a heart attack and I appealed over the loudspeaker for the police to withdraw to allow an ambulance to come. None was allowed for 30 minutes. When the man was put on a trestle, a police horse jostled it and the man nearly fell off as he was carried out to the ambulance. The police surrounded the park where the meeting took place. They surrounded the area so that people could not escape. They surrounded the platform where we were trying to hold the meeting. That went on for three or four hours.
I went to Chief Superintendent Goodall and appealed to him to withdraw his men. I appealed to the crowd to stay calm. I was on the platform and relatively safe but there was great anxiety among the people who saw the casualties and how the police were behaving. Two ITN men were hospitalised. Why did ITN not report that? Can hon. Members imagine another incident in the world when a cameraman is hospitalised trying to film a demonstration because he is attacked by the police which is not even referred to on the news bulletin? No wonder Sir Alastair Burnet got his knighthood! A BBC unit had its lights smashed by the police because it was filming what they were doing. That did not appear on the BBC news either. No wonder MI5 vets those who run the major news bulletins and administration on the BBC.
This is a matter which must be dealt with other than by an exchange in the House. If this had occurred in South Africa, Poland or any other country, it would have dominated the headlines and the news bulletins for days and days. I can understand the newspaper proprietors not wanting it to be reported because they hope that Murdoch will beat the print workers so that they can beat their own print workers, but that public service broadcasting stations should deny the public the truth about what happened that night is an utter disgrace and the matter should be raised in the House.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: To prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making more of a fool of himself, may I tell him that there is an objective video recording of the incident?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is paid to say this.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Although I can understand that, from one vantage point, the right hon. Gentleman may have formed certain impressions, which he has described, the objective video of the entire operation is available, timed and does not coincide with his description of events.
Mr. Benn: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a paid employee of the Police Federation. He is entitled to come here and earn his money supporting the Police Federation if he chooses to do so. I have no objection to that because there have always been trade union representatives in the House. I shall quote some of the letters that I have received. One comes from Chelsfield in Kent and says:
"Printers who bring their mothers, fathers, wives and children to a rally to meet colleagues who had marched from Glasgow and Newcastle do not use the occasion to attack the police."

305
It continues:
"The riot squad then entered the enclosed area from all sides attacking anyone in their path. Within yards of me a man was felled and had a heart attack. He was one of the marchers from Glasgow. We appealed to the police to retreat, but they showed no regard to any of the injured. About 30 minutes passed before an ambulance was able to get through."
A woman from Orpington writes:
"I am the wife of an ex-Sun employee…The shocking behaviour of the riot police who constantly attacked the crowd, many of whom were women and children, was nothing short of barbaric. They were completely out of control and seemed to enjoy what they were doing. The impression that this will leave on the minds of young children is unthinkable."
A woman from Shepperton wrote:
"On Saturday night the BBC lost its camera, knocked out by the riot squad before the horses charged. This is not the first camera they have lost. This also applied to ITN. These are planned attacks by the police."
The letter continues:
"On the second charge of the night—and there were many—that I happened to be involved in, the pickets, including a T.V. cameraman and his crew from Western Germany, were chased by screaming abusing police into a side road which may have been Dock Street."
Some people might say that not all of those who went were print workers. I know that that is true. I have here a letter which runs:
"I am not a print worker, but a middle-aged deputy head teacher of a primary school, who now finds it very difficult to instil into children a respect of the police after my experiences at Wapping.
Last Saturday I was not at the main entrance, but at Glamis Road. Everything was calm until about midnight, when with no warning, the police horses were ridden like a cavalry charge from Glamis Road into the crowd. Even when the demonstrators rushed to the pavements for safety, the horses charged on to the pavements knocking people over and against walls."
It is no good Conservative Members trying to pretend that it did not happen. It did happen. I was not present, but that deputy head teacher has evidence which should go to a public inquiry.
All of this results from a deliberate attempt by the Government to criminalise dissent in Britain. It has happened at Greenham common, although not as badly. It has happened to the black community. It happened to the miners. It is happening to the print workers. I believe that the Government are guilty of a gross misuse of the police in support of their own political policies. It is a serious threat to civil liberties.
There should be a public inquiry, but I am encouraged by the Home Secretary saying that it is all the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to ask the House and the Government to suspend Sir Kenneth Newman as he is responsible for what happened on Saturday night and Sunday morning. We must have elected police authorities.
Police constables are under no obligation to obey unlawful orders. I saw a man with a helmet and a few pips on his shoulder—I do not know whether he was an inspector—instructing them to go into the crowd where they wrought such havoc among innocent people. I believe that that was an unlawful order.
After the Nuremberg trials, police constables should know—they will know better than me—that it is not lawful to be told to attack people and to incapacitate them when they are simply there to attend a meeting. If somebody can be found throwing stones, they are arrested, charged and tried, but they are not incapacitated. One does not use police horses against innocent people. I advised the crowd that night and I advised them again to follow
306
methods of non-violence. Non-violence practised by Mr. Gandhi got the British out of India and non-violence in this country is the best answer. Having said that, I must also say that innocent people, unlawfully attacked, whether by police or anybody else, are entitled to the right of self-defence.
People who are now thinking of organising demonstrations should have doctors present, because they will need them. They should also have nurses and lawyers present. I took a lawyer with me when I tried to see Chief Superintendent Goodall. He said that he did not want to speak to me because I had someone with me. I told him that I was going to raise this matter in the House and I insisted that a lawyer be present. People who are organising demonstrations should also have video cameras there because one will not see the truth on the BBC or ITN and one should have photographers there to know what really happened and have independent witnesses.
The media black-out makes it difficult for those who are not present to understand what I have said, the detail that will be in the letters, which I hope will all be published, and the passion with which I have spoken. Never in my life have I seen anything like that happen in this country.
I believe that the cause of the print workers is just. I believe that people should not buy The Sun, The Times, the Sunday Times or the News of the World or distribute them. If people go to listen to those who have marched the length and breadth of the country, like the Jarrow marchers, to alert people to what is happening, and they gather for a peaceful meeting to be addressed by five people, three of whom are Members of the House, they ought not to be attacked in such a way and systematically batoned by the police. The responsibility ultimately rests with the Home Secretary. Since I do not expect any satisfactory answer, I appeal from this House to the public to see that there is such a wave of protest that such a thing can never happen again.
6.41 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: For many years, a long time ago, I was a reporter and foreign correspondent and I know how easy it is, standing in the middle of a riot or demonstration or engaged in war, for an individual to form a picture of events that he believes to be the complete one. I have a description written by another observer at the Wapping affair to which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred.
Mr. Benn: Which paper is it from?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall come to that. It says:
"a march of 2,500 pickets had passed peacefully down Fleet Street, but they were joined by members of the Socialist Workers and Communist parties before they reached the plant. At first, there was almost a carnival atmosphere in the streets.
Then, at exactly 10 pm—as if pre-arranged—the violence erupted with smoke flares being thrown into the police lines as demonstrators tried to surge into the plant. Scotland Yard described it as 'a major and concerted attack on the police, totally unprovoked and malicious'."
The report goes on to say:
"Two pickets were pulled down by police and arrested as they ran into the plant threatening to 'carve up' the wives and children of the workers inside.
The anti-police violence was spurred on by…union leaders haranguing the crowd over loudspeakers…the more moderate Brenda Dean, general secretary of Sogat 82, was booed as she took the platform."

307
I no more credit the totality of that report in the Sunday Times than I do the report of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield as both were observers standing in particular places unable to form a judgment of the entire scene.
However, perhaps unknown to the right hon. Gentleman, on a high point overlooking the scene there was a video camera. That camera recorded not all but a large proportion of the events that took place over several hours. I have seen that video. It is, as with all videos taken at night in difficult conditions, in many respects obscure. It is difficult to follow and a great deal of it is rather tedious. However, with the timed clock built into the film one cannot be in any doubt about the order of what happened. The police line was standing firm as the marchers went by and the demonstration got off to a good start. Then, just as the Sunday Times reported, at precisely 10 o'clock a large surge of people comes from the right and the police line starts to buckle. Fighting breaks out. Some police officers fall to the ground. Then visibly, the missiles start to be thrown. Some of them explode as they come to the ground. They may have been smoke grenades or possibly petrol bombs—I cannot be certain because I have only seen the video. However, the smoke rises, more police officers fall, fighting commences and the police line is clearly broken. It was only at that point, several minutes after the missiles were thrown, that the first shield groups went in and the police horses followed. Therefore, it is totally untrue to suggest that the police initiated the violence. On the contrary, they suffered a great deal of violence and many casualties before they responded, as they must, to maintain the rule of law.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman was not there. He has seen a video taken from the roof of a building at night. I was there and the Sunday Times man claims to have been there, perhaps watching it from inside. Surely the matters we are discussing, the differences of opinion and the evidence available are so important that the hon. Gentleman will at least join me in demanding a public inquiry where all these matters can be brought forward by those who are ready to give evidence in an independent assessment of the event. It is wholly wrong that it should be left to the Sunday Times, the representative of the Police Federation and one or two people who were there to settle the matter with the Home Secretary who laughed during much of my speech when I was explaining what happened.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Of course, there will be the best form of public inquiry that we have. The courts of law will decide this matter. They will not decide it on the partial witness of people such as the right hon. Gentleman, who saw something, or of the gentleman from the Sunday Times who says he saw something else. The courts will take into account and weigh the totality of the evidence. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman not to reach conclusions which are justiciable and evidential at this point. The courts of law will settle this matter, not exchanges in the House. That is why I regret and resent the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to reach decisions on justiciable matters in our national legislature. These are matters for the police to bring before the courts of law and for judges and juries to determine, not Members of Parliament.
Mr. Benn: When the police numbers were not visible, how can I, who observed the scene and saw the riot police
308
come in, bring an action? The hon. Gentleman knows that he has in mind the police giving evidence against people. He also knows that it would be impossible, given the circumstances, for the people whose letters I read out to take actions which would lead to criminal prosecution against unnumbered police who, in some case, were engaged in criminal assault.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman who knows many things simply reveals how little he knows about the processes of the law and the processes of complaint against the police. Complaints can and should be made against the police by himself, any other hon. Gentleman or any member of the public who feels aggrieved. There is, quite properly, an independent police complaints authority which will weigh what he has to say. Ultimately, justice rests upon the courts and not upon the intersecting monologues that are thrown around the House.
Mr. Ron Leighton: How does one identify the police officers when they were not wearing numbers?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Because some officers had to put on protective clothing in the face of the missiles that were being thrown, some of them did not have their numbers. I very much regret that. I can see the practical problem. However, it is simply not true to suggest that none of the police officers had their numbers on. I believe that the overwhelming majority did and they could have been identified.
I move from Wapping, which has understandably exercised the House, to the principal subject of this debate and the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As always, I listened carefully to the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).
The tide of recorded crime has been rising relentlessly in this country under all Governments every year for the past 41 years. In the late 1940s, about 250,000 crimes were recorded each year; in the early 1950s, it was 500,000; in the early 1960s it passed the 1 million mark; in the early 1970s it passed the 2 million mark; it went up to nearly 3 million by the end of the 1970s; and today it is probably on its way to 4 million.
There are all kinds of reasons for this quantitative explosion in the volume of crime in our country, and very few of them have anything to do with the political complexion of the Government of the day. One reason is that there are many more people—about 12 million more over the past 20 years. We have five or six times more vehicles and many more tourists. Above all, we have more laws, be they simple matters such as construction and use legislation in transport or a variety of other things that this House has passed. We also have more policemen.
Taken together, those things go some way towards explaining why the numbers of crimes reported to the police have increased, yet none of them in any way explains the 16-fold increase in crimes reported to the police over the past generation under Labour and Conservative Governments alike.
I have been involved in this matter for an uncomfortably long time—some 17 years—and my assessment, which coincides with that of the police service, is that today our society is experiencing a new and disturbing phenomenon. We have a greater propensity to

309
break the law and to commit crime. I have asked myself a thousand times why that should be so. But it is not unique to Britain: it is the case throughout the Western world, and no doubt the Eastern world as well.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith laid a great deal of the blame on unemployment and poor social conditions. Of course I see that they must play some part, but I must also say that there is no evidence to suggest that those who are out of work commit more crimes that those who are in work. I must also acknowledge that some of the most violent crimes are committed not by those who live in poor neighbourhoods but by the jeunesse d'orée—the gilded youth. Those who have more money and live in good social conditions are most often the sources of violent crime than the poor.
Mr. Soley: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman misquotes me. I did not say that there is a direct link between crime and unemployment. There is not, and never has been. There is a link between unemployment and imprisonment. The important point is that there is a link between the collapse of the community and community ties and crime, and part of the reason is the issues that I raised. including long-term youth unemployment.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has already made his speech and does not need to make it again. Perhaps he will allow me to make mine.
I accept that there is some relationship with unemployment and social conditions, but it is by no means direct. Far more important as sources of crime are the moral and social changes that we have seen across society—the breakdown of family life, the vast increase in broken homes, the large number of children who are brought up in one-parent families that either cannot or do not train them to respect other people's property, more money to buy hard liquor and on occasion drugs that youngsters cannot handle. Meanwhile, many of our schools are less inclined to instil in their students what I am not ashamed to describe as old-fashioned values. Classroom discipline in a large minority of our middle and upper schools has deteriorated, while a few teachers set their pupils a poor example. Similarly, in factories and offices, it is the experience of the police that there is today—and I think we all know it—a pretty high volume of casual petty thieving, fiddling and cheating the boss. At a higher economic level, tax evasion has become a national pastime.
The way in which the press and television report crime and violence must also have some effect in normalising dishonesty and conditioning young people to violence. I am convinced that in Tottenham and Brixton we saw examples of imitative violence as a result of unblanced youngsters copying in real life what previously they had seen only on the television screens.
Public figures as well often set the wrong example. While this House was debating the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the GLC issued tens of thousands of leaflets portraying the police as racists and oppressors. While the Committee on the Safety of Medicines was debating whether to allow Depo-Provera—a new contraceptive jab—to be available on the NHS, certain women's organisations, partly financed by Left-wing councils, put out pamphlets that suggested that white doctors, backed by the police, would use this to
"solve the immigrant problem by rendering black females infertile".
310
Soon afterwards, other militants daubed many of the black areas of south London with vicious propaganda that falsely claimed that it was the police who had set fire to the house in Deptford where a number of black youngsters were burnt.
Against that background, is it really any wonder that some black younsters are prepared to launch themselves, like Zulus, at the police, or that some young people in south Yorkshire were ready to bombard the police with stones, when on their television sets they could see the president of the NUM not only preaching violence but actually leading his mob against the police?
There are two other examples set by politicians that do nothing but harm. One was at Broadwater Farm. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I visited the area soon after the arson and violence, and while the looted shops and burnt-out cars were still disfiguring the neighbour-hood, the leader of Haringey council not only refused to condemn the riots and the killing of a policeman, but, worse, the local Labour candidate for Parliament, councillor Bernie Grant, accused the police of murdering PC Blakelock themselves. He said that the rioters should be congratulated on giving the police a good hiding We have now seen at Wapping language used by hon. Members of this House describing the police as "all that is worst in our society."
These are some of the sources of the increase in lawlessness in Britain, and they help to explain why in my view the propensity to violence is increasing. But there is a second major feature of the contemporary crime map. Crime today is much more violent and complicated than it was in the 1950s.
Far more crime is now committed with the aid of cars, weapons and drugs. Many more very young and very elderly people are involved both as perpetrators as well as victims—for example, the rape of a 9-year-old girl and a child of three with oral gonorrhoea. On the other side of the coin we have a boy of 10 charged with being a rapist, and an 82-year-old woman who was imprisoned in the airing cupboard of her council house until she suffocated and died. At the time of her death she weighed less than five stone. She was imprisoned there by three boys, all of them under 14, who wanted to cash her pension cheques.
Similarly, as crime becomes more violent a also becomes more complex. Computer crime is flourishing and public order crimes take on far more political, ideological, racial and industrial connotations. Meanwhile, Britain has become the scene of international crime, notably Irish and middle east terrorism.
What are the consequences to the police service of these changes in the nature of crime, its increased complexity, its increased ferocity and its ever more international character? The rise in crimes involving firearms not only means many more deaths and serious injuries; it has produced armed policemen. The increase in complex frauds means that the police must train and deploy many more highly specialised fraud squad officers. A single major fraud can now occupy as many as half a million hours of senior detective time before any real progress is made. Public order problems create insatiable demands for more policemen. Not a weekend goes by without the Metropolitan police having half a dozen demonstrations, marches and protest meetings to handle, not to speak of football hooliganism and the increased demand for better and more trained officers to man drug squads, special

311
branch enquiries, anti-terrorist and diplomatic protection squads, and the ever rising demand for more men to guard the Houses of Parliament and indeed Government offices.
I just want to mention one problem that has not, to my surprise, been touched on, namely, the difficulty of policing multi-occupation high rise housing estates. Many of these areas in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow have been turned into the habitat of the lonely, the neglected, the deprived and the single elderly; others, like Broadwater Farm, have become to a large extent ghettos, because the public, and not the police, have made them so. Too often the consequence is a rise in petty crime and juvenile delinquency.
How are the police then to cope in such an environment? To what community do they look for consent as they seek in such non-neighbourhoods to protect the poor, the weak and the innocent? I admit that the police know too little about what goes on in these high-rise concrete jungles. They visit such places only rarely and then only when called on to deal with one, shall we say, out of every three robberies or domestic brawls that take place there every night. I concede that there are occasions when the police intervene, but they arrive mainly in cars and in strength. Especially in immigrant areas, this kind of reactive policing makes for bad police/ public relations. Tottenham, Brixton and Toxteth underline this.
Yet no one is doing more to remedy this problem than the metropolitan police forces themselves. They do this through local consultative committees—my right hon. Friend referred to those. Unfortunately, they are too often boycotted by the Left. They do so too by police visits to schools and youth clubs, although these too are sometimes forbidden by Left-wing teachers, as in Hackney, and by calls on elderly people in the company of social workers, although on occasion some social workers reinforce local antagonisms towards the police service.
Since the Scarman report, every urban police division that I know has been trying—and how they try—to to bridge the gap between the local police and the so-called ghetto dwellers. But bridges need to be built from both sides of a gulf. It is also important to recognise that community policing, to which we all devote ourselves, is not always the answer to the problem. On the face of it, of course, it makes good sense for the police to operate with and through the consent of the community that they serve. But whose consent exactly are the police to obtain? Plainly, not the criminal's. What about the pickets during the miners' strike or at Wapping? Or the black youth leaders in Brixton? Or the Left-wing council in Haringey, or the Protestant majority in Ulster?
I want to put this question to my right hon. Friend quite precisely. When, as in the Broadwater Farm ghetto in Tottenham or in the Nottinghamshire coalfield or in Northern Ireland when the Government decide to ban an Orange day march, the police are caught in the middle of disputes between two sides of the same community, between the older blacks and whites who want to live in peace and the younger ones who enjoy riots, between the print workers who want to work and the print workers who want to stop them, between the Protestant majority which wants to exercise its right to parade and shout, "Hang the Pope", and the Catholic minority that hates this, in these
312
circumstances when the police are caught in the middle, how and from whom are they expected to obtain something called the community's "consent"?
The reality, of course, is that the consent that the police must seek is not to be found in the habits and emotions of any local community at one particular time, although common sense demands that these always be treated by the police with care and respect. The consent that matters most resides in universal standards expressed, as they must be, in the law. The great merit of the law is that it provides the only secure and universal standard that is not subject to the partial standards of particular communities. Nor is it subject to the shifting values of public opinion. Yet all this the notion of policing by parochial consent implicitly undermines.
Local consent is not always even relevant to the nature of the crime that the police must tackle in today's society. I give one example. What is the role of community policing in tackling terrorist crimes? Intelligence is an important factor, and strong links with the community can improve the quality of tip-offs. But when the IRA gang which had detonated bombs in half a dozen west end restaurants, killing and maiming scores of Londoners, was finally cornered in Balcombe street, it was not Dixon of Dock Green, pounding the beat as a community constable in Piccadilly, who identified and gave chase to them, who cornered and besieged them and eventually forced the release of their hostages.
In those circumstances, the police have to be specialised. This kind of operation, like those at the Iranian and Libyan embassy sieges, has to be carried out, for the protection of the public, by the highly trained groups of the CID or by the anti-terrorist or bomb squads. The same goes more and more for perhaps a quarter of all current police operations. As crime becomes more dangerous, more complex and more technically sophisticated, the police response simply cannot always be the bobby on the beat. The police must respond in terms of the threat that they face.
In particular, that goes for their response to the threats against public order. When mobs—I say this bluntly—of drug-crazed youngsters set fire to part of our inner cities, when armies of pickets go roaring round the coalfields with the declared aim of imposing their will by force or intimidation and, in the process, obstruct the highway or threaten people's lives or property, it is no use for the police to attempt to contain these challenges with no more lawful force than is available to the community constable. The riot squad has to go in.
The truth is that community policing, which we all support, is rather like motherhood or the United Nations. It is an unarguable public good. But it can work well only when there is a comparatively settled and homogeneous community. The arsenal of police responses to the challenge of violent crime and public disorder today needs to include a wide range of alternative responses, from accountancy to investigate complex frauds to deadly marksmanship when faced with terrorist murderers that the police may have no choice but to shoot to kill.
I want to indicate how the police react to the choice that they now are offered between the policies of the two Front Benches. The police, as they always do, will stay out of politics. They will form their own opinions and they will keep quiet about them. My suggestion to them is that they make their judgment on the claims of the two main parties to be the policeman's friend by two pragmatic tests.

313
The first is that when hard choices must be made, for example, over street violence, they should ask themselves which politicians can be relied upon to stand four square with the police in upholding the law. The second test is, which party in office is the more likely to provide the necessary resources and support that policemen need to do their job? In my view, the present Government pass both tests.
Ministers—they will not he surprised to hear me say this—have upset the police by failing to consult them on matters that affect the efficiency of the service. They have upset them by surrounding them with paper work and bureaucracy as a result of some of the work that we have all done in the House on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They have upset them by not moving fast enough to prevent some loss of manpower in nearly every force in response to the Treasury's cash limits and the penalties of the Department of the Environment on local expenditure. But the present Government's copper card is copper-bottomed because they kept faith with the police on two specific issues. They implemented the Edmund Davies pay award over which the Labour party hovered, and ever since since they have honoured that award in full. Secondly, in and out of Parliament Ministers, and in particular the Prime Minister, have stood firm behind the police whenever they have come under attack from violent men.
I turn to the Labour party. I wish the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were here. Many policemen in my experience at one time had much sympathy for and have probably supported the Labour party.
Mr. Ron Leighton: That is very decent of them.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Unfortunately, Labour's image in the police service has been badly flawed by its tendency automatically to take sides against the police whenever individual issues arise, and also by its poor record on police issues when in office. Every policeman welcomes the evidence that the Leader of the Opposition is distancing himself from the anti-police brigade in his party. It is deeds, not words, that count, and the Labour party will have to work hard to erase the service's memories of 9,000 of its best men quitting in disgust because Labour in government denied them decent pay and support.
Mr. Soley: I am not interested in responding to the hon. Gentleman's homily which I do not think has much bearing in fact. I would rather go by my own contact when I speak at police meetings. I want the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House why, at the last police conference, the Home Secretary was so roundly booed.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I was there and spoke at considerable length. As I have said, Ministers had upset the police in the ways I have described. We shall see how my right hon. Friend fares in three or four weeks' time in Blackpool. If the hon. Gentleman presses me on the matter, I can only say that I have never been present at a more disturbing and worrying occasion than when a Labour Home Secretary was given the silent treatment by the police. I had never seen a politician treated so harshly before.
314
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the matter seriously. If the Labour party is to consolidate the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to be seen to support the police, it must do several things. First, the Leader of the Opposition must stop local Labour chieftains mounting attacks on the police that simply are not justified. The hon. Gentleman knows of what I speak. He knows that there is a limit to what his party can do. The Leader of the Opposition should dissociate himself from the violent attacks that are made persistently on the police by Labour councillors up and down the country.
He must denounce and, if possible, remove the block by some Labour councillors on policemen visiting schools. He must dissociate himself from the vast majority of GLC leaflets that depict the police as racists and oppressors of gays. He must get rid of any support in his party for the reggae record which has been sent round many youth clubs and which contains violent language directed against the police.
Above all, what he must do in the House is to withdraw the Labour party's three-line Whip against the prevention of terrorism legislation because without that in present circumstances the police cannot hope to protect any British Government, whatever its complexion, or their visitors from terrorist attack. He should repudiate the Labour party's commitment to disband the special patrol group, without which the Metropolitan police cannot cope with violent mobs. He should get rid of the commitment to dismantle or run down the special branch whose undercover work is indispensable, as he must know. Above all, he should also abandon Labour's policy of placing the police under local political control. What that means in practice the police have already seen at close hand in the attempts of the South Yorkshire Labour party to take away their crowd control horses and of the Manchester Labour party to make the local chief constable give up his force's baton rounds.
If the Labour party will do those things and at the same time call off the vendettas which its local councils pursue against the police, the Government should respond, as my right hon. Friend has already suggested he will do, by resisting the temptation for law and order to become again the battleground of politics. There is nothing the police need more than a truce between the parties on this issue. To have any chance of stemming, much less reversing, the rising tide of crime and violence we need to reconstruct a national consensus on policing. That is the copper card that all parties should be playing.
7.17 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). I agreed with parts of it and I disagreed with other parts. The assessment, at the end, of the attitude of the ordinary rank and file policeman was not entirely unpredictable and not totally persuasive as an impartial judgment. On the other hand, on the basis of his contribution today I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman spoke at great length when he last spoke to the police conference.
The Home Secretary was right to stress the need to try to create partnership in tackling the problem of crime prevention. There must be a substantial measure of common ground between us that we must have the maximum public and community involvement if we are to do anything about tackling the level of crime.

315
All of us have an interest. We all suffer from crime, some people directly because they are attacked on the streets or their homes are broken into. It is a sad fact that in my constituency some of my neighbours have had their homes broken into two or three times during the last couple of years. My constituency office has been broken into twice in less than a year.
Others suffer crime indirectly, through the fear of crime. On that point, the figures quoted by the commissioner in his 1986 strategy report were extremely frightening. The report suggests that about 68 per cent. of Londoners now fear having their homes broken into, 63 per cent. fear having their homes or property damaged, and 62 per cent. fear being mugged or robbed. That is an indication of the problems that crime presents to many ordinary Londoners.
Other people have to bear the cost of crime through higher insurance premiums and through paying for repairs. All of us are involved and must share the responsibility for tackling crime. We cannot simply say that it is a matter for the police, and they should get on with it.
One vital area of co-operation is between local authorities and the police. From my experience in local government I know that in the past too many council decisions have been taken without any thought for crime prevention. Deck access flats, for example, are a godsend to criminals wanting to make a rapid getaway, and the confusing layout of many council estates makes it all too easy for rapid escapes, especially when the approach of police cars can be seen at some distance. The underpasses probably looked good on architects' drawing boards in the 1960s, but they have become a mugger's delight. Similarly, in the 1960s underground car parking probably seemed a sensible solution to the car park problem, but in many of our urban areas it is a vandal's delight and an opportunity for arsonists. In many areas underground car parks are now completely burnt out or fenced off as being too dangerous to use.
The fittings of many council houses, such as louvred windows and glass-pannelled front doors, are a doddle for young criminals to break through. The latest worrying development in my constituency is related to lofts above the top floor of blocks of flats, where there must be trapdoor access. Criminals are now discovering that they can break in through the trapdoor and smash through the ceilings of the flat below the loft. We must tackle that worrying problem.
Local authorities must accept that they need to repair vandalised property quickly in order to maintain standards and prevent invitations for further criminal activities. To leave property empty is an invitation to criminals both to vandalise the empty property and to use it as a springboard to break into neighbouring flats and maisonettes.
All that leads me to argue that there may well be a case for establishing crime prevention units within the management of major local authorities. They would co-ordinate the planning and decision taking of the various council departments to ensure that we feed into the system the needs and requirements of crime prevention at the right time—when key decisions are being taken—so that we do not discover too late that we have a problem which we did not think about when the decisions were on the drawing board.
316
Crime prevention units could heighten public awareness of the need for crime prevention, and the need to back up police campaigns and offer practical advice and assistance to local people. When anybody suggests a new element in local government, there is immediate suspicion of another gigantic piece of bureaucracy with a great committee structure on top. I see no need for that if we have crime prevention units. I would have thought that they have fewer resource implications than some police units and police committees that have appeared in local government during the past few years, and that have not been so much concerned with crime prevention as with harassing and making life difficult for the police.
Moreover, crime prevention units could be cost-effective. They could reduce the direct costs to an authority of vandalism and of repairing the effects of house-breaking and related crime. At the same time, they may help to reduce insurance premiums. We should consider seriously establishing crime prevention units in local authorities.
I have had some experience of crime prevention panels. They undertake useful and worthwhile initiatives, such as property-marking campaigns. On the whole, I have found that they are not particularly well resourced, they have administrative problems, and, sometimes, appear to lack a clear, decisive, cohesive role. If one had crime prevention units in a local authority, crime prevention panels could be brought under their umbrella and so made more effective.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said about many of our worrying crime problems being on our council estates. I shall touch on three issues under that heading. The first relates to entryphone systems. They are badly needed, but sometimes people tend to believe that they solve all problems. A great deal depends on the quality of the system, and how the local authority goes about installing it. It is important to explain to tenants how the system works and what part they must play in it. Far too often tenants do not understand it or become sloppy and allow people in, without checking it. Secondly, local authorities have installed highly technical systems which promptly go wrong, and the whole benefit of the arrangement is destroyed. Thirdly, and most important, any entryphone system in council blocks of flats must be sufficiently robust to withstand the vandalism to which it will probably be subjected. If we can do something along those lines, entryphones will have a part to play in improving life for many council tenants.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that resident caretakers are far better than mobile caretakers. No politics is involved because councils of all political persuasions have in the past chosen mobile caretakers. On the whole, my experience is that trade unions prefer mobile caretakers for obvious reasons. If one wants some sort of presence on a council estate, a resident caretaker is essential. We cannot expect caretakers to take on violent criminals, but they must have rapid contact with the police to call on them when they are needed.
One of the most worrying aspects of crime on council estates is the difficulty of persuading people to give evidence. All too often people know who the troublemakers, vandals and burglars are, but are extremely nervous about giving evidence in court. They fear that the criminal will be bound over or will have a fine to pay, and

317
will come back on the streets. They fear for their property and families if they give evidence. I find that deeply worrying.
There is an urgent need to devolve more power to council house tenants. Localised self-management by tenants through bodies such as tenants' co-operatives creates pride in the community and an atmosphere in which crime and criminals are deterred. I agree that a tenants' charter is the right approach. The more power and responsibility we give to council tenants, the more interest they take and the more we create the climate of opinion which many of us want to see.
There are now about 2,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in the Metropolitan police area and the Metropolitan police are evaluating that approach. Even at this stage one can see some clear benefits. Public awareness is certainly increased, the schemes involve more people, and definitely appear to improve relationships between the public and the police. My subjective investigations seem to show that the results are good. People seem to be more comfortable and settled where such a scheme is in operation, and to believe that it has a useful role to play.
The sad but predictable fact is that most of the schemes are well-established in comfortable middle-class owner-occupied nighbourhoods. That is inevitable because that is where they are easiest to run. The sad fact is that the schemes are much more necessary on council estates. If we are to start effective neighbourhood watch schemes on council estates, we need to put more resources and greater effort behind them. Incidentally, I regret the knocking reaction of some Labour authorities to the whole concept. I do not suggest that neighbourhood watch is the answer to all our problems, but it is taking us in the right direction. The more support and pressure that is put behind it, the more effective it will be.
The Home Secretary in opening referred to the fact that a great many householders have totally inadequate protection against crime, including inadequate door locks. Although I am not one of those who support the idea of making general grants available to all householders to improve security, I think that there is a special case for those who are most at risk and have the least resources. I refer specifically to pensioners who are on supplementary benefit. When I have tried to persuade the Department of Health and Social Security that it ought to be prepared to make a single payment for the installation of much needed locks and security equipment in private homes, its attitude has been that single payments are not available for that sort of approach; it is something for which the householder should have saved from supplementary benefit throughout the years.
Anybody who has lived on supplementary benefit will understand how difficult it is to expect someone to save anything. It is certainly not sufficient for the installation of proper, efficient and effective door locks. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will take that issue on board and see whether he can persuade the Department to include sensible security arrangements in the items to be covered by a single payment for those really in need.
I have one other personal comment that arises from something that the Home Secretary said about clear-up rates which, in respect of burglary and housebreaking in the London area, are still depressing. I want to repeat a comment that I have made to the commissioner and certainly to the Home Secretary on more than one
318
occasion. I refer to the problem that is created for many ordinary people who, when they suffer this sad and traumatic experience of having their homes broken into, find that the police response is something less than they had expected. There is sometimes lengthy delay before the police arrive and, when they do, it is a cursory examination and they give the impression that there is very little that can be done. The follow-up is usually nothing at all.
I understand the problems of the police. The sums involved may be comparatively small but to the person concerned this is a desperately sad and depressing experience. I understand the pressure on the police, but some sensible level of concern and an attempt to follow through is crucial in this important area of public-police relationships. If the aim is to encourage confidence in the police, in the matter of training and the attitude of supervisory officers in the force, I hope that we will try to ensure that the ordinary policeman on the beat who is involved in such incidents gives the impression that, even if the matter is a minor one and one of many to have happened that day, he is concerned and regards it as important, because that is what it is to the person who has suffered from the crime.
As I said at the beginning, I think that the Home Secretary is right to try to build a partnership against crime throughout society. I think that the Government are broadly on the right lines. They need more resources, and in some respects their approach would be improved by more adventurous methods and techniques. I hope that the Minister will be open-minded about new suggestions coming forward from whatever source.
The message that we should send out from the House, I believe, is that we are searching for some measure of agreement. We shall disagree on a great many things about policing and crime, but we ought to be searching for some substantial measure of common ground from which we can launch a crime prevention campaign. I am convinced that, for many of our constituents, crime prevention is far too important to become a simple political football.
7.33 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.
I had hoped to speak in the debate on prisons on Tuesday. Having read the report of Tuesday's debate, I notice that very few Back Benchers were successful in speaking, so I imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would have been unlikely to catch your eye. I had hoped to speak about Northeye prison and the happenings there last week. As it turned out, I could not attend Tuesday's debate because I had a happy duty in my constituency when the Queen Mother came to open a section of the electrified railway line. I am therefore hoping to have the opportunity to dwell at some length on the events last week in Northeye prison. I base that hope on the fact that there has been no outburst of criminal activity in my constituency such as we saw within the perimeter fence of Northeye for many years.
If the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) does not mind, I shall not dwell on what he said beyond agreeing that everybody must be given a sense of responsibility for tackling crime. I agree that one of the real local problems is persuading people to come forward and give evidence not just to the police but in magistrates courts. In conversations with the local police in my

319
constituency, I have been told time and again that they come across people who, after a first experience in a magistrates court, say that too much time has been taken and that the treatment meted out is such that they are reluctant to go back. That is a bad thing, and efforts must be made to correct it.
Any debate on crime prevention must take into account the trend in the past 30 years or more, to which a number of hon. Members have alluded, of a 5 to 7 per cent. annual growth rate in crime. Against that background, the Government have made important progress on a number of fronts in the past seven years in a fashion unmatched by the previous Labour Government. I wish to comment on some aspects of the progress that has been made, apart from prisons, and then turn to the happenings at Northeye.
The first thing that arises in the list of the Government's achievements is crime prevention. We have already heard today about neighbourhood watch schemes. There are already more than 9,000 such schemes. They have achieved wide popularity and, in certain areas, have brought down the local burglary rate. That seems to be the early experience in my constituency where a number of such schemes have been implemented, particularly in Bexhill, and notably at Cooden within Bexhill.
Crime prevention schemes under the community programme are very important, as is the greater emphasis that has been placed on public awareness of the need for security with, for example, insurance companies providing incentives for people to take security measures. It is surprising how few people bother to do so.
Most important in regard to crime prevention, I am sure, is that a greater awareness should be built up in schools. It is essential that the police should continue with the good work that they have begun in schools so that youngsters from the earliest stages realise that they should have a sense of responsibility about crime prevention.
With regard to support for the police, the Government's record speaks for itself. In the past seven years, spending on the police force has risen from £1·1 billion to £2·8 billion. There are 14,000 extra staff in the police, most of whom are police officers. As to court powers, there has been much progress with the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, but I am bound to say that I am one Member of the House who believes that more progress is needed.
I feel that society would be safer and more responsible if capital punishment for murder were reintroduced. I also think that there should be tougher sentences for rape and crimes of violence. I hope that those subjects will not be lost on this Parliament and future Parliaments.
The Government have done a great deal to help victims. It is a sobering fact in a sense that compensation for victims has increased by more than 250 per cent. in the past five years. What the Government have done in tackling the drugs problem is essential to crime prevention, first and foremost, in the education of youngsters who make up the greater part of the potential market for drug traffickers and, secondly, by cracking down on the drug traffickers themselves.
The Government's determination to tackle the problems of law and order contrast sharply with the ambivalent attitude of the Labour party. It is all very well attaching a law and order label to the Labour party's new public relations image, as we have heard this afternoon
320
and in the past week, but that does not fit with many of the remarks made in the past several weeks by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. It fits even less well with the comments made by some prospective Labour party candidates such as Mr. Livingstone, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Boateng and many others—not to forget examples of other prominent members of the Labour party such as Mr. Scargill and many more.
It is not just the Labour party that falls down in that regard. I heard with interest what the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said, but I remind him that at the time of the Handsworth riots the president of the Social Democratic party quickly appeared on television and said that South Africa had come to the streets of Britain, as if the Handsworth riots could be excused in the name of social deprivation. That is muddled thinking. There was no social deprivation to speak of in Handsworth. Millions of pounds of Government money had been invested in that suburb of Birmingham in the form of new housing. It is dangerous to attach such notions to the problem of violent crime and riot.
Many Opposition Members say that unemployment is the principal cause of violent crime, but if they look back to the 1930s they will see that the parallel simply is not there. My view is that crime continues to rise because our society has created a climate of permissiveness over the past 30 or 40 years. There is more affluence in our society but also more rootlessness. There is greater freedom, but less of a sense of responsibility at school and in the home, and less of a sense of individual obligation. We know that television glamourises violence. I had great sympathy for the private Member's Bill introduced recently with the object of reducing the amount of violence shown on television.
Most important, however, reliance on the state and at the same time a corresponding resentment against the overwhelming authority that the state represents underlies much of the increase in crime. In the past seven years the Government have done a great deal to change society's attitude by creating opportunities once again, and building individual choice into our way of life. We have seen it in many forms—in council house purchases, matters affecting trade union membership, and many other areas of everyday life. That augurs well for society. In the longer run, that sense of individial responsibility will reinforce the nation's will to play a more responsible part in everyday life and therefore in crime prevention.
I now refer to the part that our prison service should play in the overall scheme of crime prevention, and I should like to talk about Northeye prison. The prison was converted from a Royal Air Force camp in 1968 and opened as a category C prison. Much local anxiety was expressed at the time, as I know full well because my parents lived within a mile of the site then. Originally it was designed for 250 prisoners and later it accommodated up to 450. The prisoners were housed in 28 huts, most of which were wartime billets, and other amenities were developed at the camp. There is a perimeter fence, which has been breached more often than it should have been. Time and again there have been stories in the local press of prisoners getting through or over the fence and away across the Pevensey marshes. It may not seem so funny now in view of the events of last week, but there was wry humour in Bexhill not so long ago when people were apprehended getting into the prison to join a drugs party.

321
Most of the prisoners are serving sentences of six months to three years. Some have served longer sentences elsewhere and have been transferred for the final stages of their term of imprisonment for good conduct.
Northeye prison was not immediately accepted by the Bexhill community, but a great deal of good work was done by the governor for local public relations and by the board of visitors, which continues to be active on the prison's behalf. An excellent sports hall has been developed at Northeye and there was a boost to local trade from the presence of a small community of prison officers.
Nevertheless, four inter-related problems have arisen at Northeye over the past two years. The first is the number of escapes, to which I have alluded, and the second is the drugs problem. In several prisons such as Northeye, no matter how hard the prison officers work, visitors can, do, and have continued to bring drugs into the prison at visiting time. Also, as the perimeter is surrounded by a public footpath, it is not difficult for people to toss drugs over the fence into an area that the prisoners can reach without difficulty.
There has also been a problem of violence, which has been growing mainly because of the large turnover of the prison population. Not all those coming to Northeye are natural candidates for a category C prison. Two hundred were sent back by the governor last year and this year the rate of rejection has been about four a week. The prisoner arrives, and is processed into the prison, and it may take several days before his true nature is revealed. That presents a problem.
The fourth area is undoubtedly staffing ratios. The prison service carried out a manpower survey in June 1984, and in June 1985 it confirmed that the full complement of prison officers at Northeye should be 55, but as there are plenty of demands from other prisons as the prison building programme expanded and more prison places came on stream, Northeye contented itself with a smaller strength. Recently it has been operating satisfactorily with a complement of 37 or 38, of which two officers were sometimes seconded to help at London prisons. A great deal of overtime was worked by those prison officers, and at Northeye it has recently averaged 16 hours a week. When prison officers have been on prolonged sick leave, the prisoners' activities have had to be restricted. That always presents a potential threat.
After the manpower survey was completed, approved and agreed, an inner security fence was promised as a matter of priority. The Government approved the building of that fence in the past financial year. I know that for a fact because I received confirmation in writing from my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. The fence should have been built but it has not been built to this day. The purpose of the fence was to divide the accommodation units from the other units, which were destroyed last week.
Against that background of a staff shortage but a workable arrangement at Northeye, it is worth bearing in mind that there have been several years' progress in the prison service in terms of resources afforded by the Government. Expenditure on the prison service in the past seven years has increased by 85 per cent. In real terms, allowing for inflation, that is an increase of one third. In the current year the budget is about £639 million, which is 8 per cent. up on last year.
As was said in the debate on Tuesday, the number of prison officers has been increasing. There has been an 18
322
per cent. increase since 1979 while the number of prisoners has risen by 12 per cent. Last year about 1,100 new prison officers were taken into the service so that the total is now about 18,700. 'Thanks in part to the overtime that those prison offices are working, they receive on average pay of about £15,000 a year. They are part of a service in which five new prisons were opened in 1985–86, with 15 more earmarked for opening by the early 1990s. In addition, 10,000 existing cells are being refurbished.
What really happened at Northeye last week, and why did it happen? The problem started at 6 pm. It is significant that that is exactly the same time as the prison officers' overtime ban was due to begin. From that point on, there was nothing but chaos, or it would have been chaos but for the prompt action of the prison governor, his staff on duty and the police. I visited the prison at 2.30 am and spent part of the night outside the perimeter fence with the Sussex police and the governor. The following morning, I inspected what was left of Northeye prison as the prisoners had been moved away. I inspected the charred ruins with the governor and senior police officers.
What happened at Northeye was that the chief officer was on duty when the overtime ban took effect with four ordinary prison officers and one senior officer—six men—in charge of 445 people. No sooner had the overtime ban begun than some of the prisoners appeared wearing masks, having taken baseball bats from the sports centre, and began breaking into the canteen. At that point, following a pre-planned strategy, the chief officer got in touch with the governor and courageously secured the release from the detention unit of two prisoners who had been locked up for their safety because they `tad transgressed the inmates' rules about paying for tobacco. He got those two prisoners, who otherwise would have suffered terribly, out of the unit and removed the other prison officers outside the perimeter fence. The police came along rapidly and contained the outbreak.
The prisoners inside Northeye went on the rampage and began to put everything to fire. They left their accommodation units, the chapel and the sports hall intact, but every other building at Northeye was burned and completely destroyed—the workshops, the canteen, the welfare centre with its records, and the hospital after the drugs had been removed and drug cocktails made up to egg the prisoners on. It seems that a hard core of about 30 prisoners were responsible for all that happened. Most of the rest, at a fairly early stage, surrendered to the authorities outside the perimeter fence, and 10 others escaped across the marshes.
Why did it happen? Last week, I said in the House that it was important that the issue should not he prejudged and that there should be an inquiry, but I am bound to raise two points, the first being the focus of media attention on the prison officers' overtime ban. There is no doubt that last week the prisoners at Northeye and other prisoners could gear themselves up for their criminal violence because they knew exactly when the overtime ban was due to start. It must also be said that prison officers, who are experienced men, must have known precisely what could easily happen. It must also be said that, at Northeye, as soon as the prison officers heard that there was trouble, those following the overtime ban immediately returned to work and pledged total support to the governor until the problem had been resolved, but by then the damage had been done.

323
In the face of the excellent Government policy of allocating more resources to prisons such as Northeye, and offering so much support, why did the industrial action arise and the dispute take place that led to so much wanton criminal destruction? My view is that regional and central management in the prison service lacks sufficient management and leadership skills. If we remember that the problem of allowing a mix of prisoners at a category C prison had got out of hand, and that pressure was mounting over escapes and violence—pressures that the board of visitors identified and the governor had long identified, and to which I referred in correspondence with Ministers—we must ask ourselves how the pressure could have arisen, bearing in mind that there are substantial resources in the prison service.
I discussed the issue with the deputy regional director when he visited Bexhill at my request last year, and I also asked about the failure to build the fence that the Government had authorised. In that area, as with negotiations on staffing ratios, the management of the prison service leaves something to be desired. In any industry where people have been earning overtime for a prolonged period and there is a request that the system should change so that less overtime will be earned, there is bound to be tension and misgivings. The position at Northeye and other prisons was not much different from that in comparable industrial situations.
The difference at Northeye is that the orders from regional management tended to be what I described as orders given in a macho climate. They were terse orders. There was little explanation or scope for discussion and debate. Although the Government made the right decisions about allocating resources, the necessary changes, including reductions in overtime, were not implemented smoothly enough because industrial relations were tense. The working environment of the prison officer is an area in which rumours abound and where men are required to appear tough. What was needed was a little more patience, planning and thoroughness in negotiations on the part of regional management.
That being the case, wherever the Government increase resources it is important that the management of the public sector should be watched carefully to ensure that it is up to the challenge of implementing the large-scale improvements that the Government have authorised. I can think of several areas where that has happened. As parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, I am not allowed by custom to talk about that area, but I hope it will not matter if I say that at least in the National Health Service positive steps have been taken to introduce better management. Where large sums of Government money flow into the public sector, it is important that the management does not stand still but that steps are taken to improve it. There is potential for the regional and central management of the prison service to enlarge its skills.
In the debate on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put his finger on the point when he said:
"The service faces many problems … but it has two relatively new assets of which we have to make the best possible use. The first is the willingness of the Government to invest substantial resources in the service. The second is the realisation … that by changing to more sensible ways of running prisons further resources can be released."
324
In replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
"All that increased expenditure needs to be based on a proper and efficient system in the prisons so that those who work in the prisons do so according to modern and not outdated industrial relations practices. That is what the Government are tackling."—[Official Report, 6 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 47–73.]
Indeed, that is what the Government are tackling. If they concentrate upon the prison service, that is one area in which there will be no repeat of the disorder, violence and lawlessness that occurred last week in several prisons, especially at Northeye. If we get the management of public sector resources right, especially in the prison service, we should have greater value for money. If we apply that principle to the crime prevention effort as a whole, society will be much better off.
7.58 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) could not speak in the debate on prisons. The moral is not to throw away one's notes since it might be possible to regurgitate them on a subsequent occasion.
We debate a vital matter when we deal with the prevention of crime. The level of crime and, sometimes even more importantly, the fear of crime damages and detracts from the quality of life of those whom we represent. Crime has increased by 40 per cent. since the Government came to office. There are now 10,000 more crimes every day than when Labour left office.
The principal job of the police is combating crime. For whatever reason, in many ways, they are not doing it very well. In London the clear-up rate is only 17 per cent. Fewer than one in five crimes is solved. That is lower than for the rest of the country. The Metropolitan police are at the bottom of the league for crime prevention.
Since 1979, Government spending on the police has increased in real terms by 40 per cent.—that is the same figure as the increase in crime. Police pay, police clothing, police weaponry, police vehicles and police numbers have had favourable attention. Police manpower is larger by 10,400 than it was six years ago. The police are highly paid. For example, an ordinary constable costs more than a Member of Parliament. In return, we are right to expect the highest standards of professional conduct and the police to act strictly within the law.
Effective policing and the solving of crime can be achieved only with public co-operation and consent. That basic truth is accepted by everyone who understands anything about such matters. Recent police actions are damaging, jeopardising and destroying co-operation with and public confidence in the police. The police cannot, as I saw them do, rampage through the streets of Wapping and expect those on the receiving ends of truncheons and horses hooves to co-operate with community policing the next day as if nothing had happened.
Let us understand that those thousands of workers who have been robbed of their jobs by Murdoch—a totally unscrupulous employer who sacked his entire work force without a penny of compensation—have a perfect right to protest and demonstrate. What sort of people do we think they are? Would the House have them do anything else? Would the House expect British people, who stood up to tyrants such as Hitler, to lay down passively and be trampled on by industrial butchers such as Murdoch? Of course not. They will not do so. When those workers,

325
many of whom are women, exercise their freedom to protest and demonstrate, they are not criminals, enemies of the state to be beaten up at will by riot police and trampled on by horses. They are decent, honest citizens who pay rates and taxes. They should have the protection of the House.
In this free country, demonstrating is not a criminal offence. If certain police officers act as though it were, they will, deservedly, lose public support. They will certainly lose mine. If they thus forfeit public support, they will be inhibited in their ability to fight crime. It should be explained to senior police officers that it is a traditional democratic freedom in this country to march through the streets and to hold open air meetings. They should understand that those freedoms serve a vital function in our democracy. They bring issues and grievances to the attention of the public, the media and the authorities. They allow citizens to express their solidarity with one another. They are an accepted form of expression, representing a demand on those in power, and they lead, ideally, to the peaceful resolution of conflict.
I shall tell the House what happened last Saturday night. The main road running past the Murdoch plant at Wapping is The Highway. One parade came along that road from the east and another approached from the west, having come from the embankment. When the parades met, at about 10 pm, there was an incident. The incident lasted only seconds. The police say that some missiles were thrown, as was a smoke bomb. At this, immediately, and, I emphasise, without any warning, the mounted police charged at a gallop up and down The Highway, scattering everyone—men, women and children. The police would be expected to react. One would have hoped for an intelligent response, but, by any standards, that was a wild over-reaction. However, that was just a minor beginning.
The mounted police occupied The Highway. The crowd had moved up Wellclose street, which leads off The Highway and into Wellclose square, both making a cul de sac, and into the adjoining park where there was a speakers' platform. Here they posed no threat to the police or anyone else. Yet after a pause, and completely unnecessarily, there were further cavalry charges. Then, most inexplicably of all, with the people penned into the cul de sac, a large force of riot police, with helmets and visors, short shields and truncheons, appeared opposite Wellclose street. For a few minutes, they did a sort of war dance, rather like footballers coming out on to the field. With absolutely no provocation, and absolutely no warning, they made a charge in a V-formation into the people, knocking everybody flying with truncheons and shields.
There were many injuries. Even more inexplicably, without any justification whatsoever, the police made repeated charges in that manner, at intervals, for hours. I repeat, for hours! I do not understand that. It was a scene of the utmost, sickening brutality. I found it difficult to believe what I was seeing or to believe that it was in England. Despite appeals from speakers on the platform, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), for calm and order, and for the police to withdraw, the charges continued regularly.
There were, inevitably, many casualties. The following day, I received a preliminary list, which I have with me, with the names and addresses of 44 injured persons. There were 24 head injuries, one eye injury, one broken jaw, two
326
leg injuries, two of severe shock, and 13 injuries were unknown. One person collapsed on arrival at work. Another had a heart attack. Since then, I have received another long list of injuries. When the ambulances arrived, they were impeded by police. What is even more difficult to explain is that the police would not let anyone leave.
I left the platform, where I had observed everything, and tried, around midnight, to leave at the back of Wellclose square. I was told by a line of riot police that no one could leave. I asked why and was told that that was their order. After I introduced myself, I spoke to a superior officer. He asked me whether I was alone, and let me out. Had I wanted to take a crowd away from Wapping, I would not have been allowed to do so. Police were keeping people penned in for hours and repeatedly, and Violently, baton charging them without the slightest shred of justification or reason. If that had occurred in Poland or South Africa, it would have been headline news and reported in terms of outrage.
What possible explanation can there be for such appalling behaviour? The only explanation I can think of is that it was an exercise in intimidation—people would be so beaten and assaulted that they would be deterred from going back. When I tell people about that, I get two reactions. First, they can hardly believe that it happened. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield gave his account of events, I noticed that the Home Secretary laughed. The Home Secretary did not believe my right hon. Friend. Hon. Members might not believe that such things happen in England, but I was there and I know what happened. It was a disgrace and scandal.
Secondly, people say, "In future, you should stay away. If that is what it is like, do not go to Wapping" or, in other words, allow the police arbitrarily to abolish the right to demonstrate. That is a dangerous doctrine, because the demonstrators had a perfect right to be there. Parliament has declared no state of emergency and the Riot (Defence) Act 1886 no longer exists. In acting as they did, the police acted outside the law. It was the police who breached public order. Their action led to less, not more, order. The law says that truncheons should be used only in self-defence or to resist violence—neither condition existed. The riot police were breaching the law and the peace, not defending them. Countless people—women and men—were hit on their heads, not their bodies. The riot police in effect declared war on the printers, injuring and taking them prisoner.
At Peterloo 150 years ago, in similar circumstances and with similar motives, the Army sent its cavalry into a peaceful crowd. The press proved capable of outrage then, and so should we in the House today. It was not all that long ago that we saw police at Stonehenge—I was not there but I saw on my television screen what happened—truncheoning men, women and children. Last Saturday's police action was indiscriminate and brutal. It was a scandal and a disgrace and intolerable. We cannot possibly accept or endorse it.
There will be other consequences. The demonstrators have asked me, "Are we expected to remain passive and to allow ourselves to be beaten up? Are we to be used as punch bags or for target practice and not retaliate?" I am not sure what my answer should be. Should we not wear crash helmets for protection if, when we go to meetings, we are to be beaten on the head? That will encourage an escalation of violence and lead to a more violent society.

327
It is now clear that special paramilitary units are available to be deployed against gatherings of civilians whose congregation is disliked by senior police officers—officers who, in practice, are not answerable to anyone. These special units are trained out of the public view and in tactics that have yet to be divulged publicly to anyone. Those tactics obviously include maiming and injuring innocent persons, to disperse them in violation of the law.
The Metropolitan police at Wapping are behaving with intolerable arrogance. They appear to be unanswerable and unaccountable to anyone. They show a cavalier indifference to public concern and seem unrestrained by any democratic process. Because their tactics are evolved privately and in secret, when they go wrong—as they certainly did last Saturday—no one is called to account. The police seem to be an unaccountable law unto themselves. The notional accountability, through the Home Secretary, to Parliament is a farce. The finances of the police are not presented to Parliament. Their accounts are not submitted by independent auditors. Even parliamentary questions are dodged. There is an overweening power within the state that is currently unaccountable, in effect, to anyone and at present is behaving in a way that is totally intolerable to the decent British people whose taxes pay their salaries.
This appalling behaviour must be brought under control. I want to hear less talk about a police force and more about a police service. I want more police on the beat in my constituency tackling crime, stopping burglaries and preventing muggings, not acting as auxiliaries to the unscrupulous industrial mugger, Rupert Murdoch. The present behaviour of the riot police at Wapping does incredible harm to the reputation and credibility of the police. It must be brought under control. The riot squad must be withdrawn completely and permanently. Its presence is extremely damaging and it is singularly inappropriate in an industrial dispute.
I should like to thank the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw)—for this morning receiving me and my trade union friends so courteously. I hope that he will review what we said to him. I hope that he will consider in particular that there is no reason to use the riot police and the tactics that they are trained to use. They are inappropriate in an industrial dispute. Union members would not bring their wives and children on their marches and parades if their object was to cause violence and mayhem. The riot police are therefore inappropriate.
We are told that action should be taken under existing procedures, but how do we take action against riot police who cannot be identified because they cannot be recognised under their helmets and visors? I am told that if a policeman has an overall on he cannot have a number on his shoulder. These days, people just pin on badges. There is no reason why a policeman should not have a badge which shows his number and which he can pin on his overall.
There should be a public inquiry, because this issue will not go away. The television companies and journalists will start looking at the incidents. The Government must realise that Wapping is only two miles down the road and that, next time, there will be television companies and observers of every type. If the riot squad come out again
328
and behave in that frenzied and indiscriminate way, when they beat up even their own policemen, it will be an appalling tragedy and will do incredible damage to the police.
I beg the Minister to believe that we are telling the truth. It is no good laughing as the Home Secretary did when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield explained what happened. I know that we find it difficult to believe that this happened in Britain with British police, but it did, and it must never happen again.
8.17 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) will forgive me if I do not follow the theme that he eloquently pursued in his speech, much of which reiterated what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I do not deny a worker's right to march or to demonstrate, but I question whether it is altogether wise to bring wives or children to a demonstration and whether it is wise to come to a demonstration with a smoke bomb in one's pocket.
The debate is about crime prevention rather than Wapping, so I shall revert to the general theme. I apologise for not having been present during the opening speeches by the Front-Bench spokesmen. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), I am a governmental fag and was therefore hard at work in my Minister's office when the Front Benchers spoke. I understand that their speeches were entirely predictable, but none the worse for that.
When we consider crime, the old cliché that prevention is better than cure is not only true but shows what a very apt title we have for this debate. Unemployment has already been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I do not accept the theory that the increase in detected crime in recent years is largely due to higher unemployment, but I believe that there is a relationship between crime and unemployment. Another truism that cannot be ignored is that the devil will find work for idle hands.
Before turning to the main subject of my speech, I should like to leave with the House a few thoughts about how to cope with the impact of forced idleness on crime. If one wants proof that the devil will find work for idle hands, one needs to look only at the Wapping scenario that was described by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East. I acknowledge that there is no quick solution to the unemployment problem. Even if there were to be a radical change in policy, nothing could be done to haul down the unemployment figures quickly. However, something could be done to ensure that there are as few idle hands as possible.
I do not know how many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have heard of the workfare schemes that are being tried out in the United States. A recent television programme graphically described these schemes. A wide variety of such schemes, now in operation in the United States, come under the general heading of workfare. They have in common the aim of enabling welfare benefit recipients to do useful work in return for benefit. Most of the schemes are still at an early or experimental stage and cover only a proportion of welfare benefit recipients. However, they are well received. In nine cases out of 10 the unemployed are happy to take part in the workfare schemes, which are usually to be found in the public sector. The overriding rule is that they are not allowed to

329
take work off regular workers. If redundancies are due, the trade unions in the United States—which otherwise accept workfare—say that the workfare employees must go before employees who are trade union members have to leave. That is fair enough. It is a small price to pay for trade union co-operation.
Workfare surely answers the plea that it is better to make people work than to pay them not to work. Workfare does not cure the unemployment disease, but it goes some way towards killing the pain. It can also help to occupy idle hands, and thereby remove what some people regard as one of the many causes of crime.
I am pleased that the Department of Employment is studying the American experience of workfare schemes to discover whether they have any application in this country. I believe that they have. I should be pleased to know whether the Home Office would be prepared to take on the responsibility, in conjunction with the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security, of looking at such schemes.
I agree that much crime can be prevented. I applaud what the Government have done to deter criminals. The fact is that 14,000 more policemen, a third more resources and a tougher sentencing policy, particularly for violent crimes, have all played their part. But most crime is against property—95 per cent. of it, I believe. Much of that is opportunist and could be prevented by what I describe as good neighbourliness and community policing. That is what I intend to speak about this evening—and also the effect that such a policy has on manpower, particularly in my county of Hampshire. I should, perhaps, refer to two counties. My police authority encompasses both Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, the so-called twin counties.
The crime prevention unit that was set up in 1983 by the Home Secretary has led to new initiatives, such as local crime prevention projects. Five of them are now under way in different areas. It has also led to the greater use of preventive techniques, such as neighbourhood watch. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on so eloquently singing the praises of neighbourhood watch schemes.
A key element in crime prevention is community policing. Most police forces are trying to forge closer and more co-operative relationships between themselves and the public whom they protect. Some of the community policing schemes are experimental, such as that in Exeter which goes back as far as 1976. However, they are becoming much more commonplace. John Alderson, who was the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall in 1976, described community policing as
"a 'preventive' and not an 'enforcement' mechanism."
I think that he was right. He did not invent community policing, as perhaps he would have us believe. Ever since Peel, British police have been community policemen. Now we want the public whom they protect to be more positively involved in protecting one another through preventing crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that the essence of community policing is policing by consent. All hon. Members would agree about that.
I questioned my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently about neighbourhood watch schemes and I was very pleased with his reply. He told us that 3,850 neighbourhood watch schemes are now operated in the shire counties. That is more than double the number that
330
was recorded in January 1985. Indeed, 9,300 neighbourhood watch schemes are now in operation throughout England and Wales. Although there has not been a detailed analysis of their effect upon the crime rate, the first results are very encouraging. I have heard that a scheme in Chatham received the support of 90 per cent. of the 1,250 dwellings on a housing estate and that crime there fell by 50 per cent. during the first nine months of its operation.
Other schemes that have been studied show useful reductions in the level of crime, sometimes as high as 50 per cent. However, chief constables are probably wise to proceed cautiously with neighbourhood watch schemes. Where they have proved to be effective, it has become evident that additional policemen are required to support them. I made that point a fortnight ago at Question Time.
That leads me to the general question of police manpower. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State last January about the effect that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is likely to have upon my police authority's manpower requirements. I told him that the Hampshire police authority had carried out trial schemes in order to anticipate the manpower needs that the introduction of the Act would involve to meet the greater administrative demand. The Hampshire police authority thought that a considerable number of police officers would be required if the number of "bobbies" on the beat was not to be depleted. On this trial basis, experience shows that the additional administrative burden imposed upon the police authority by the 1984 Act would warrant an increase in the establishment.
A report has been published only this week. I have not read it, but it shows that the policeman's view of himself is that there is nothing that leads to greater stress than sitting at a desk doing paperwork. Uniformed officers like to be out on the beat.
That leads me to the manpower problem that today faces the Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary. I ask for the indugence of the House as I shall be rather parochial in what I am about to say, but I am sure that the problems facing my police authority also face other counties in England and Wales. Mr. Robin Hodgson, the clerk to the police authority, has told me that over the past few years his office has made repeated approaches to the Home Office for an increase in the authorised establishment for the police force covering Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. These requests have been turned down despite the rapidly increasing demands being made on the police. All that the authority is asking for is an increase in uniformed police officers from 3,084 to 3,112—another 28 policemen. The justification for that relatively moderate increase in establishment stems from the ever increasing demands of the rapidly growing population.
The population of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is currently 1,650,000. That figure includes an increase of 50,000 over the past five years, yet in that time there has been no corresponding increase in the police establishment. Certain areas of the county—notably Basingstoke, Chandlers Ford, Hart, Horndean, Fareham and Totton in my constituency—have experienced especially rapid growth.
Between 1981 and 1985 the chief constable, Mr. John Duke, has reported an increase in recorded crime of 20,000 to a total of 90,000 cases. Over that same period violent crimes increased from 2,514 to 2,977. Some of the

331
additional resulting demand for manpower has been met through civilianisation based on the principles set out in the Home Office circular 114/83.
My police authority has carried out a review of its force headquarters organisation, and the proposals contained in its report have been accepted by the council and can be put into effect without delay or additional funding. However, in the current financial year some 30 more uniformed police officers could be released for outside police duties if the county funds the additional cost of civilian staff at £535,000 and a further £230,000 for the following two financial years, so releasing another 15 uniformed police officers for outside duties.
The authority is committed to these and other measures of civilianisation. That is all good news and entirely consistent with Home Office recommendations, but it can only meet part of the demand for extra policemen on the beat. The authority has therefore made a good case for Home Office approval of an increase in establishment of two inspectors, 12 sergeants and 14 constables—28 additional officers in all which will cost an additional £363,000. That sum has already been set aside by the county council in its revenue budget for 1986–87 in anticipation of Home Office approval.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have received a letter from the clerk of the police authority setting out in greater detail than I have had time to do this afternoon the case for the increase in establishment supported by charts showing the major influences on manpower over the past decade and figures showing the demand for uniformed patrol constables and sergeants.
That follows an earlier request in 1984 for a modest increase of three sergeants. Those proposals were also self-financing. When the Home Office turned that application down, it said that the Secretary of State would be prepared to reconsider the matter especially in the light of developing proposals to civilianise posts currently filled by police officers. I believe that Hampshire has now more than met the Home Office requests on civilianisation. The Home Secretary's reluctance to approve an increase in Hampshire's establishment may also have been based on the 20 vacancies that existed at that time. There are now only eight vacancies, so that excuse will no longer wash.
We have in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight a police authority that is doing everything that it is being asked of it by the Home Office and more. As a local authority, Hampshire has continued to honour its obligations to a rapidly expanding county in spite of a cut in the rate support grant this year of 6·6 per cent. Hampshire police force has taken the lead in experimenting to find more cost effective ways of preventing crime and catching criminals. Crime may be rising but detections are also increasing. One of the chief constable's greatest worries is the increase it burglary offences. Burglary is a particularly offensive crime and has been the subject of rigorous countermeasures by specially dedicated officers. That shows the deterrent and preventative effect possible in one area when priorities of manpower and counter-measures can be concentrated as they have been for burglary.
The chief constable has said that he wishes he had a greater capability for similar concentrations of manpower. That is what I now request my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider. I ask him to support my police authority, which has served my county and constituents so well over
332
the years in a continuing climate of expenditure restraint and where the unqualified, unanimous voice of the police and the people they protect demands an enhanced level of service—in other words, more policemen. That is their need, that is my request on their behalf, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should enable them to provide.
8.36 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am a little diffident to take part in what appears to be a southern English debate, but I am encouraged to press on by the expansive presence of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone).
A concern for law and order is not and never will be exclusive to one political party. The people of Great Britain, whether they are supporters of the Tory party, Labour party, of my absent colleague the alliance, Plaid Cymru or of the Scottish National party, seek to live in a peaceful and law-abiding community.
No one in this debate has mentioned the failure of successive Administrations to deal with the problems allied to alcohol abuse. A number of hon. Members have sought to establish correlations between certain social and economic phenomena and the crime rate. No one can deny that there is a pronounced correlation between alcohol abuse and a range of criminal activity. Alcohol-induced criminal activities range from involvement in petty crime to homicide.
I would like to consider three areas of crime prevention. I will not be following the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in his interesting discussion of police manpower. First, I would like to consider petty crime and how we deal with the petty offender, including the mentally ill and chronically alcoholic.
A week ago I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Scottish Office was taking to divert petty offenders, including mentally ill people, from terms of custody. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
"The Scottish Home and Health Department is monitoring 13 schemes now operating in various sheriff court areas throughout Scotland whereby individuals charged with offences, mainly of a minor nature, who are considered to be likely to benefit from social work help are referred to social work departments as an alternative to prosecution."
Incidentally, I am glad that the Minister has joined us. He also spoke about the relevance of the powers contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, saying that they
"enable a policeman, instead of arresting a drunken person suspected of an offence, to take him to a 'designated place' for the care of drunken persons."—[Official Report, 2 May 1986; Vol. 96, c. 537–38.]
By a "designated place", the Minister means a hostel that is manned by trained personnel who can deal with those who are habitually or publicly drunk. The hon. Gentleman may know more about these designated places than I do, but I am given to understand that there is only one, and that is in Aberdeen—although not in Aberdeen, South.
Mr. Gerald Malone indicated dissent.
Dr. Godman: I am sorry, perhaps it is in Aberdeen, South. However, I believe that two more designated places are planned: one in Peterhead and one in the west of Scotland. I may be wrong about that, but we certainly need more of them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and am sorry that I missed the beginning of his speech. Another designated place has been announced for Dundee, and I hope that it will be opened later in the year.
Dr. Godman: I am pleased to hear that, and I am sure that police officers in Dundee will also welcome that news. Moreover, I am pretty certain that police officers on the beat in Greenock and Port Glasgow would welcome the setting up of another designated place. More places are needed both north and south of the border.
I am aware that other hon. Members have been as patient as I was when I waited to speak, and so I shall be relatively brief. The violent crime of child abuse is far too prevalant today. More resources should be devoted towards preventing, detecting and treating this social evil. I welcome this week's publication of the draft circular of the DHSS entitled, "Child Abuse—Working Together for the Protection of Children".
Paragraph 7 involves the need to improve resources. It says:
"By ensuring that there is effective child health surveillance for all children in the community and that young parents in particular receive advice and guidance on"—
that dreadful word—
"parenting, much can be done at a primary prevention level to reduce the likelihood of child abuse. If family practitioners, health visitors and other staff in these preventive services are aware also of the signs of possible abuse, cases can be brought to the attention of social services departments earlier and more consistently than otherwise. This awareness is equally important for hospital staff, particularly in accident and emergency departments."
Much more needs to be done. Training in the prevention and treatment of child abuse is of the essence. I am talking about paediatricians, and particularly about those who are attached to casualty departments. In many areas of Great Britain training in the detection of, as they are called, NAIs—non-accidental injuries—might benefit from improvements being made. I have been told by paediatricians in Scotland and London that the detection of non-accidental injuries can be very difficult. Consequently, teachers should be trained in detecting possible cases of child abuse. Such abuse may come to light, in various ways, in the classroom or playground. Training could also be given to health visitors, police officers and, just as importantly, to social workers. Members of the abuser's family also have a duty to protect those children from being subjected to such brutality. Equally, those who inflict physical, sexual or psychological harm on children should be encouraged to seek help from statutory agencies and voluntary associations.
I commend the marvellous work done by the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It does valuable work in seeking to care both for the abused child and his parents or "caretakers". The system of children's hearings in Scotland has also played an important part in dealing with this social evil. But that evil is not altogether absent south of the border. More resources must be put into training social workers and others directly and professionally involved with those children who are in danger of suffering sexual or physical abuse. If the system of children's hearings or children's panels is unacceptable south of the border, perhaps family courts should he set up.
334
I turn now to the prevention of that horrendously violent crime—rape. It is essential that the victims of rape and other sexual assaults should be treated as humanely and sympathetically as possible. That sympathetic and sensitive treatment must begin from the moment that the victim or complainant is first interviewed by police officers and must continue until she gives evidence in court. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for acknowledging the need to make the criminal investigation of rape more sensitive to the victim's needs. In the interest of justice, the interests of the accused must also be protected, but that protection should not include anonymity during court proceedings.
I accept that there are immense difficulties about reconciling the need to protect the complainant with the need to protect the interests of the accused. Indeed, that is particularly true when the issue of consent is in dispute. But the criminal investigation of rape must be exhaustively and diligently pursued bearing in mind that the victim will suffer from shock even if she has not been subjected to excessive physical violence. It is not always the case that rape is accompanied by severe physical violence. I believe that the New York police department recently issued a circular which sought to give advice to those women trapped in such appalling circumstances. Part of that advice was not to offer physical resistance.
For my part—no doubt the Minister and his ministerial colleagues will reject this—I would like to see the complainer provided with legal assistance and representation from the moment a complaint is brought to the attention of the police force. I believe that is the case in Denmark where the victim is given that representation right up to, and including, the court proceedings. I would like to see a ban or severe restriction on defence lawyers trawling through complainers' sexual history or experiences. Far too many judges, on both sides of the border, are only too willing to allow this type of fishing operation.
Rape is a vastly under-recorded and under-reported crime. If the victim of sexual assault had confidence in the criminal investigation of this crime, more cases would be reported to the police. The Home Secretary acknowledged that. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those who are found guilty of this crime should receive a condign punishment. A rapist must receive a severe sentence for his crime. The rapist certainly deserves no pity, except perhaps when he is suffering from a mental illness or when a case can be made for diminished responsibility. Too often, English judges impose sentences upon convicted rapists that are foolishly light and inadequate.
I chose to speak about three forms of criminal activity which could be diminished by the application of resources such as for the criminal investigation of rape and sexual assault. There is no doubt that some welcome developments have occurred in Scotland and England. The police force at Strathclyde now have a unit under the control of Chief Inspector Hood which deals with victims of sexual assault in a most compassionate, sensitive and intelligent way. That is a development which is emerging in towns and cities in England.
British people, whatever their political persuasions, seek to live in a peaceful, law-abiding community. The House must acknowledge that.
8.53 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: We appear to exist in the post-permissive era when certain Victorian values are once again appreciated. But the legacy of that era means that for many, a far greater element of permissiveness is now a part of the fabric of modern society. Running parallel to that development has been the growing tendency to divorce political action from the rule of law and to substitute violence for debate. It is a matter of deep regret that such an approach has yet to be reversed. Even when that reversal occurs, once again, one fears that an element will have been absorbed into contemporary life style.
For the prevention of crime to be successful it is necessary effectively to counter the decline of traditional standards by enthusiastically advocating the importance of law and order as well as positively portraying the benefits of moral behaviour together with respect for our fellow beings and for authority. In that way both the overemphasis on permissive behaviour together with the doctrine of revolutionary tendency rather than persuasive argument may be rebuffed.
However, while the winning of the arguments in the long term is essential, short-term measures to help to gain success over crime perpetrated under the guises of permissiveness or political action are urgently necessary. There must be a greater partnership between the protectors and the protected. People cannot leave everything to the police and the politicians.
The prevention of crime can range from the elementary to the more exotic. Every householder should have a chain on the front door, every parent should have full knowledge of where their children are playing. Might we not combine such basic essentials with more dramatic ideas?
The stocks were used to shame the villain—humiliation can be a most potent weapon. There should be a form of public disgrace for child abusers, rapists and the like, as well as the full rigours of the law. The instant correction of the transgressor by the transgressed was accepted by all—why not a clip around the ear rather than the full rigour of the law?
Perhaps the ultimate areas of unbridled permissiveness and unwarranted political action lie in drugs and terrorism. Both these crimes show an alarming growth and a frightening ability to undermine stability. Neither can be left solely to the local community. International cooperation is essential for the successful prevention of these crimes.
In the matter of drugs, the Council of Europe has been at the forefront of moves to ensure such international cooperation. The Pompidou group, which is chaired by the United Kingdom, conducts studies into the problems of drug abuse and trafficking within Europe. Such initiatives are to be applauded, are to be supported, and are to be followed through urgently.
With regard to terrorism, a new initiative for international co-operation has been put forward by the Western European Union for a European group to coordinate the fight against terrorism under the initials GECLAT. The blindness of the choice of targets masks the optical accuracy in the aims of the terrorist. It is fervently to be hoped that the Government will play a leading role in the fight-back via this proposal. The group, involving the seven member countries, would centralise all information obtained by relevant security services so that
336
threats can be ascertained and assessed. The group would plan, prepare and co-ordinate measures so that frontiers provided no barriers. The group would create an operational unit for rapid intervention against any terrorist threat wherever it might arise.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor reminded us recently in a Carlton Club lecture of the words of Edmund Burke on liberty:
"The only liberty I mean, is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them."
The Government have continually shown their commitment to freedom and the law. They have recognised the need to accept and proclaim the responsibilities that are an essential accompaniment. The successful prevention of crime safeguards those beliefs and it is surely common sense to all but the inherently wicked.
8.59 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I regret that I have come into the debate rather late, but the House will appreciate that the local government elections are on and that some of us were forced to be away for the early part of the debate. I also regret that a debate of this importance is taking place when the House is almost empty because I am sure that the subject would command the attention of many hon. Members if the debate were on a different day. I nevertheless welcome the opportunity to speak.
Like other hon. Members, I believe that unemployment is a factor which makes crime prevention more difficult. I say that in full knowledge of the fact that we had high unemployment in the 1930s. There is a difference between the effect of unemployment on crime in the 1930s and its effect today. Today's unemployment is accompanied by affluence for some people. There is a stark contrast between the unemployed who feel alienated and lose self-respect and the affluence that tends to surround them.
It is much more difficult to tell people who feel that they have no part to play in society that they should be lawabiding—of course we tell them that—when there is such affluence. We should try to understand the pressures on unemployed young people in a world of video recorders and advertisements which encourage them to have expensive consumer goods. Their unemployment and poverty in the midst of affluence produces a conflict which we should try to understand before dismissing them by saying that they should know better.
A few weeks ago, I saw a television programme about the City of London. Television programmes often repeat what we already know, but some of the information which emerges in that programme about incomes in the City and what people will earn when the big bang comes left me astonished. People are earning £30,000 or £40,000 within their first few years of work and £100,000 seems almost to be the norm. Some people are earning £1 million a year. Such affluence when 4 million people are unemployed and some school leavers have never had a chance of a job is a contrast that I find hard to accept, and it must be even harder for young people to accept it.
Fear of crime makes many people feel insecure, but we have still tended not to worry about removing people from certain areas. For example, we have taken caretakers away from council estates and we have denuded underground stations of staff. If we leave large areas unpopulated and if there are no bobbies on the beat, we are leaving space where people of criminal intent can have their way. It is

337
all too easy to say that we have saved money by having television monitors instead of caretakers or Underground staff and that we must be careful about how many police officers we have, but the result will be open and vulnerable areas, and villains will tend to exploit them. That is why most of our constituents say that they want more home beat police officers. Home beat officers represent the familiar forces of law and order.
The Minister might well say that more bobbies have been put on the beat. We have pressed for that, but the cover is still pretty thin. Only a few weeks ago, I talked to a local chief superintendent and we discussed how many officers he would need to provide cover for most of the day and the early evening. He said that he would need 20 or 30 more officers. That is for just one police station in Battersea.
It would be helpful if the Home Office increased the number of bobbies on the beat in a few selected areas as an experiment. They should then monitor the feeling of local people and the crime rate to see whether the increase has the desired effect. If we can reduce the level of crime by putting more bobbies on the beat, it might prove to be one of the most cost-effective things we could do in that difficult area.
Racial attacks have been discussed in a number of debates and at Question Time. Nevertheless, it is my sad feeling that there are still too many people from the black and Asian communities who feel excessively vulnerable. All too often there are, sadly, reports of attacks in various parts of London and possibly other parts of the country where people are being attacked, threatened or made to feel vulnerable because of the colour of their skin. I appreciate that the Metropolitan police commissioner has given this matter high priority. Nevertheless, the attacks continue and we must look further at this difficult aspect.
One area of local authority provision which is particularly telling and does not get mentioned enough in debates is intermediate treatment provided by local authority social services departments. On occasion, I have met people working in intermediate treatment in my local authority area of Wandsworth. I cannot help believing that a sensitive and highly professional approach to young people who are liable to become criminals or who have taken the first step or two down that path is still an important preventive service.
I am concerned that the pressure on local authorities to save money all the time is, in a sense, making them reluctant to put the necessary effort, money and resources into a professional type of intermediate treatment. I should like the Home Office to look at that again. There is a difficulty and local authorities are under pressure. However, preventive work with young people must surely be one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing crime. I should like the Home Office to liaise more closely with other Departments to see whether local authorities can be encouraged to develop their intermediate treatment. Some local authorities do it very professionally, as does Wandsworth, but others are less professional. I want good practice to become the norm.
Admittedly, the previous Home Secretary said that he wanted to see more development of reparation. Since then there has been silence. Perhaps things are happening and the Minister may mention that in his reply. I cannot help feeling that one of the most important paths down which we should go would be to build far more into our criminal justice system the idea of reparation. Of course, for certain
338
crimes reparation would not be appropriate and confronting the victim with the criminal would he much too difficult and sensitive. However, interestingly, that has been done in parts of the United States.
It would be effective if criminals could be shown what they had done to the victim, if it is an individual, or to society, if they are charged with vandalism or criminal damage. If there could be a closer relationship between the people who cause criminal damage or distress and reparation, with it featuring more prominently in the punishment inflicted by the courts, I believe that criminals would feel a greater sense of the damage they cause when they commit criminal offences.
I should like a more sweeping approach to be adopted in our criminal justice system to try to encourage the courts to build in reparation. More schemes would have to be available as part of our criminal justice system, but I believe that it would be a productive and rewarding task and would have a better effect upon criminals. It would be more likely to prevent them reoffending than some of the punishments now inflicted. Of course, we have community service orders, but I would like to see more measures of that type and a greater attempt by the courts to link the punishment to a method of reparation so that the criminal is aware of what he or she has done.
I turn briefly to the subject of the design and maintenance of council estates. Having spent much time canvassing and walking up and down stairways, I am more aware of that today than a few weeks ago. I honestly believe that the design of some of our council housing encourages criminal activity. Above all, local authorities are slow to respond when graffiti is painted on the walls and common parts of flats and when there is vandalism and damage to property.
Even the problem of graffiti should be dealt with quickly, because if it seems that no one cares, the areas affected become alien territory. Instead of such areas becoming parts of people's homes, they are regarded as hostile and are attacked. I do not condone that because it should not happen, but unfortunately it does. If local authorities cared more about maintenance and getting rid of graffiti, that would inculcate, especially in young people, a feeling that someone cares, that these things matter, and that places such as corridors and stairways are akin to the homes in which people live. Such an approach would, I believe, discourage the attitude among some young people that leads them from the path of vandalism to the path of crime.
In my own area, asbestos was discovered on the Livingstone estate which had to be cleared for safety reasons. In no way do I blame the local authority for doing that. However, the council sold that estate to a developer, and the Secretary of State for the Environment attended the opening ceremony only a few days ago. On that private house council estate are now all sorts of features such as a jacuzzi simply to make the private purchasers feel that this new private estate matters.
I am not suggesting that there should be jacuzzis on council estates, but we should encourage local authorities to make council tenants feel that their environment matters. By doing so, the people themselves will show more respect and will care for their own environment.
We must develop the idea that local people can be in the lead in the battle against crime by suggesting methods of crime prevention. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has done useful work in its

339
priority estates and under its safe neighbourhood scheme. We should build on that and encourage more local authorities to go down that path, even if NACRO does not have the resources to help every local authority that wishes to do so.
Local people, through their tenants' associations, should be asked what would make them feel safer in the areas in which they live. We must involve local people. But it is no good simply asking them such questions. There must be a willingness to respond to what they say on the part of the police, the local authority, schools and all the services in the area.
I should like the work done by NACRO to be extended to many other parts of the country. We must tell local people, "You know how crime affects you. Your advice and views are important. We shall listen to your ideas, be they requests for more entryphones, better lighting, different design or more caretakers, because your lives and environment are important." If we are serious about crime prevention, that is something that we should do.
There are many useful ideas that could be developed. I have mentioned a few, and other hon. Members have mentioned others. If we are serious about helping people to prevent crime, which is the surest and best way of reducing the frightening crime wave, we must listen to what people say and act accordingly.
9.14 pm
Mr. Charles Irving: This has been a fascinating and interesting debate. The opening speeches took an hour, Wapping took another hour, Northeye took half an hour, and in the dying moments of the debate we are now getting down to the real issue of crime prevention. I hope that I will have an opportunity in the 10 minutes left to me to make one or two points that will not only encourage the Minister but pay tribute to the Government for the excellent work that they are trying to do in increasing the facilities and opportunities for crime prevention schemes.
Most hon. Members have their postbags filled these days with the horror and misery that their constituents feel about local crime. Just before I came into the Chamber—and I have listened to the whole debate from the very beginning, unlike some—I was reading a letter from constituents, who live on one of our housing association estates. They say that crime is now out of control—and this is in Cheltenham. Items are stolen from the car; gardens are uprooted; nothing is sacred. They say that they live in fear for their three daughters, restricting them to the vicinity of the house. They say that their freedom has gone. They go on to suggest a number of remedies with which I do not agree, but add that they feel that the law should prevent families like theirs thinking that they should take it into their own hands to defend their property and their homes because nobody else seems able to do anything about it.
The former Home Secretary made a significant contribution to crime prevention by setting up the crime prevention unit and supporting crime prevention projects. The Prime Minister's initiative last January, involving motor manufacturers and insurance companies in crime prevention, was another significant step forward. While I welcome these inititatives, I also note that, although we spend £5 billion-plus on apprehending and convicting
340
criminals, only a minute proportion of the budget is spent on crime prevention or on the victim support schemes, which I helped to found. Last year the crime prevention budget was about £25 million.
The victim support schemes have done very much better, and I want, on their behalf, to pay a tribute to the Minister for being sympathetic to them. They have received a considerably enhanced budget and were this year given £136,000 to foster further local schemes. When this expenditure is monitored, I hope that care will be taken to ensure that it goes on local schemes. I am particulary concerned about the application made by Stroud, when no help was forthcoming. We have to see that the funds that are made available go in the right direction.
It is my contention that crime will be prevented only when a significant proportion of the law and order budget is devoted specifically to prevention. One of the most distressing factors about patterns of crime is that the poorest and most disadvantaged communities are also the most vulnerable to criminal activity. The Home Office survey in 1984 showed that the poorest estates have burglary rates five times higher than the national average and that there were similar variations for other offences, including criminal damage, car thefts and thefts from the person.
Against this depressing background, one of the most positive and encouraging developments of the past few years has been the increasing emphasis on effective crime prevention. I have some experience of it. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was good enough to pay tribute to the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders, of which I was a founder member and of which I have been vice-chairman for many years. I know that the team of splendid people who are supporting NACRO are working very hard on this and, while they care for the offender and his family and the effect that life has on them, they are equally concerned about the victims and are heavily involved in crime prevention schemes.
NACRO's first neighbourhood crime prevention initiative began in Cheshire in 1976. Since then the number of prevention schemes undertaken by NACRO has mushroomed and we have helped to set up projects in over 40 local authorities. Improvements resulting from such schemes have included the introduction of entryphones to reduce opportunities for intruders to burgle or vandalise flats, the installation of new doors, window frames and locks which are more effective in preventing forced entry, improved lighting in streets and communal areas of estates to reduce opportunities for attacks in the dark, the introduction of resident caretakers, the setting up of youth clubs and other activities for those in the crime-prone teenage group, measures to speed up reletting of property to reduce opportunities for vandalism to empty property, the deployment of home-beat police officers and a range of physical improvements to residents' dwellings and to the estates generally.
In areas where the results have been monitored for some time they have been extremely encouraging. As a result of NACRO's first initiative in Cheshire, whereas one third of the residents reported experience of vandalism to their houses in 1976, when the project began, by 1979 the figure had fallen to one in eight. In 1976, 17 per cent. of the residents reported having had a burglary in the previous year but by 1979 the figure had fallen to 8 per cent. and

341
the fall is continuing. Therefore, I impress upon the Minister the immense value of encouraging and investing in such schemes.
More recent monitoring has also been heartening. For example, the work of NACRO's safe neighbourhoods unit recently led to substantial reductions in crime in an estate in Lewisham following a series of improvements. Comparing the nine-month period up to June 1985 with the same period in 1984, we find that burglaries dropped by 54 per cent., thefts of and from cars by 60 per cent. and street crime by 48 per cent.
I mention those things to illustrate what can be done when there is a strong will, commitment and co-operation and when a team of voluntary people are ready to give of their best and spend their time in the best interests of the community. However, I fear that such initiatives may die unless they are supported by a well funded, well coordinated national strategy.
The Stonham housing association, of which I am chairman, provides about 3,000 bed spaces for a variety of people in need. Each year 90,000 ex-offenders are returned to society; a high proportion—roughly 44 per cent.—are homeless. While there is no direct connection between homelessness and crime, about 60 per cent. of homeless ex-offenders are reconvicted within two years. The proportion is higher if those suffering from mental illness are included, which should not happen.
Currently there are only 4,500 bed spaces. The Home Office has refused to fund any new schemes or to extend existing schemes. A few months ago a NACRO deputation had the opportunity of meeting Ministers, with their colleagues in the Department, to discuss the matter. I urge the Minister not to allow this to continue for another year while yet another examination of occupancy capacity takes place. The record of NACRO can be justified and proved.
The Home Office—it is really the taxpayer we are talking about—gets an extremely good financial deal from Stonham. A Stonham bed costs £3,000 a year; a local prison space costs £11,000 per year. Additionally, Stonham achieves 90-plus per cent. rehabilitation success and there is 75 per cent. bed occupancy. If all the hotels that I have had an interest in during my career could be 75 per cent. occupied all the time, I would not be in this House living on a pittance. I should be outside enjoying myself in other ways.
Crime prevention is too serious a matter to be tagged on to the tail end of various departmental budgets. If the Home Office values the schemes run by various groups, it should reverse its short-sighted attitude and support them with manpower and funds.
9.24 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for this brief chance to speak in the debate, and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of NACRO in Norwich and Norfolk. I am delighted to add to what my hon. Friend said about its work.
During the debate it has been repeatedly stated that there is anxiety about the "rising tide" of crime, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), which has gone on under successive Governments. My constituents are worried about the level of crime which is why I am happy to participate, if only briefly, in the debate.
342
Only this evening I had a telephone message from a constituent living in the city of Norwich who is having to call a meeting because of the anxiety about vandalism by young people, and related problems. We must deal with that day in and day out, which is why the debate is so relevant and important. I support hon. Members who have said that it is a pity that the debate had to be held today.
I would put crime prevention under three headings, and, obviously, I shall have time to speak about only one. The first heading is the role of the Government and the Legislature. I support what the Government have done, are doing, and seek to do on crime prevention, and tonight we should pay tribute to their work. The second heading is the work of the police, and the third, in which I take particular interest, is education and parents.
It has already been said that the peak of criminal activity occurs among young people aged about 15. It would be relevant for me to talk at length about education and its connection with crime if time permitted, but I shall make a few comments about police work in Norfolk, and how I see the problems there regarding crime prevention.
Earlier today I had a look at the 1984 report from the chief constable of Norfolk who described crime prevention as a primary objective of the police force in Norfolk. That is equally true today. I pay tribute to the work that is being done in Norwich and Norfolk, through crime prevention panels, home watch and good neighbour schemes. That excellent work is continuing with Government support.
There is some debate in Norfolk and, no doubt, elsewhere about the extent to which the police are overstretched. Early in this Parliament I received a letter from the chief constable of Norfolk which was sent to all local Members of Parliament, expressing anxiety about certain aspects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the increased workload and paper work which it might inflict on the police force. I was reminded of that only this week when I saw in the Daily Telegraph the singularly appropriate headline:
"Policemen fold under pressure of paper work."
I hope that the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Minister will look seriously at the burden that they may be placing unwittingly on the police force when they give it additional administrative tasks. We all want the police out on the beat, doing the various tasks which will help to prevent crime. If time allowed. I could develop that theme at great length, but I think I have made the point.
As the debate is concerned with crime prevention, I should like to say how disturbing it was for me, at a time when the police are under attack from revolutionary and unpleasant elements in society, to hear the unbalanced attack on the police from those using the debate as an opportunity to talk about the events at Wapping. Of course, it is right to criticise the police constructively, and we all welcome that. But it saddened me to hear the way in which it was done. There must surely be a more responsible way of going about this. I know that the Government are addressing themselves to the whole question of crime prevention with great seriousness, and I support what what they are doing. I am happy, therefore, to support that work, and to pay tribute to the work of the police in Norwich and Norfolk.
Mr. Soley rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Mr. Soley: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not here today. He is working in a number of by-elections and local elections, which will come as no surprise. A comment was made by the Home Secretary questioning his not being here. The Home Secretary is not here tonight, and I understand why. However, I hope that there was no implication by the Home Secretary in regard to my right hon. Friend, whose absence is understandable. If we are going to go into that area, of course, we would want to look at the presence of the Home Secretary on the Public Order Bill, but I hope that that was not implied.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): No.
Mr. Soley: If it was not implied, I accept that and withdraw the remarks; if it was, my remarks stand.
We have spent some time on Wapping, and I have no intention of going over the ground again. I wish to make a couple of points. Although it is sad that it had to take up so much time of the debate on crime prevention, it was vital and necessary that views were taken and expressed on this issue, not only because of the question of policing and its link with crime prevention, but because what happened on Saturday night is deeply disturbing to everybody, including the police.
What needs to be understood by this Government more than anything else is that, if they continue with social and economic policies that rip apart the fabric of society, those public order disturbances will get more severe, and they cannot at the end of the day ask or expect the police to be used to contain those troubles.
The House needs to remember what we are doing is allowing one man—a multi-millionaire who is not a British citizen and who controls one third of the British press—to be directly responsible for creating mayhem in our streets, which results in police officers and members of the public getting injured. We need to address the political implications of that.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) also needs to remember the limitations of the video to which he referred. It is the same one that I saw. What the video cannot and does not show, for reasons that I think he will understand, is what was happening in the so-called park out of range of the camera. The senior officers at Leman street station were saying to me at the time, "We know that there is something still happening there, and we don't know what". That is trouble in a sense.
I would say to the Minister that, if he does not want further trouble on Saturday nights at Wapping, the Government need to have a long hard look at the lessons to be learnt from last Saturday and at police tactics. That is one of the matters I shall be meeting the Minister or the Home Secretary to discuss in the near future.
I want to say to the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) that I find their remarks and comments in the debate to be quite pathetic, frankly. There was a selective use of quotations—this attempt to read homilies to the Labour party or to other people and to imply thereby that something is wrong with questioning or raising discussion about the democratic accountability of the police. The police also want to be democratically accountable. The real shame of Conservative Members is that they do not have any faith
344
in democracy. That was shown clearly when the hon. Member for Westminster, North said dismissively, when giving one of his selective quotes about democracy, "whatever that may mean". If the hon. Gentleman has no idea what democracy means, he should not be in this place, because this place is all about democracy. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the courage, commitment and vision to commit himself to the democracy that we practise here and outside, he certainly should not seek to lecture anyone—police, public demonstrators or anyone else—on the importance of democracy.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soley: I was addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Westminster, North. I would give way to the hon. Member for Westminster, North, but he does not want to intervene. I do not want to use up the time available for the Minister to reply.
The statistics demonstrate all too clearly how badly the Government have failed. Their own statistics show that crime rose by 37 per cent. from 1978 to 1984. Violence has risen by 31 per cent., burglary by 59 per cent. and criminal damage by 63 per cent. It is an appalling, abysmal record. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) is an honourable exception to Conservative Members. He has an honourable record in this debate, in his work with the all-party group, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Victim Support. I take my hat off to much of what he has said and done. But unless he can persuade his Government to put their money where their mouth is, he will not achieve the things that he seeks.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds implied that in some way one-parent families were linked with high crime rates. They are not.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I said no such thing.
Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record tomorrow, he will find that a clear link is implied between one parent families and crime. The evidence does not prove that.
Indeed, if one is looking at personal and family behaviour, one needs to look at love and consistency in parenthood. That love and consistency can be as good in a one-parent family as in a two-parent family. There is no evidence of a link between crime and broken families. However, there is evidence of a link between crime, depression and other things and unhappy families. It is the lack of love, consistency and so on that creates the problem.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds should know better than to say that blacks were charging the police like Zulus. That is appalling, and he should withdraw those words. They will be utterly misunderstood outside the House. I know what the hon. Gentleman's views are about racism. He has expressed them clearly in the past and has come out strongly against racist organisations. I respect them. But his remark about the blacks charging the police like Zulus is utterly wrong and should be withdrawn.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: If I had said anything that resembled what the hon. Gentleman is alleging, of course I would withdraw it. Let me repeat the point that I was making. If local leaders go round suggesting to black

345
youngsters that the police are racists and oppressors, we cannot be surprised if those youngsters react by charging the police in the manner that they did.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman's words were that blacks were prepared "to launch themselves, like Zulus". I say again that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that phrase unreservedly. It is a disgraceful comment. It has all the usual implications of blind, unperceived—I emphasise that—racism.
People are not more violent than they used to be. In Britain, we are suffering from a breakdown in community ties. We have a Government who have speeded up that process. It is interesting that the public know what the policing priorities should be. Not just the excellent work by Islington and Merseyside on their crime surveys, but many other studies, including the Home Office study, show that the public, regardless of which group we are talking about, including the ethnic minorities, regard burglary, robbery, attacks on women, racial attacks and drunken driving as the main priorities for the police. We seek to introduce a system to ensure that those things are given the priority that people want, as shown by those studies and surveys.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) rightly brought alcohol and drugs into the debate. We have spent too little time on that. I speak as the ex-chairman of the Alcohol Education Centre. It is absolutely right to say that the link between alcohol and crime is strong.
At the end of the day, we shall not combat the wave of crime that we have experienced under the Government unless we have more sensible, intelligent and sensitive policies which, above all, put people back into public places and attempt to clear up the problem of graffiti, vandalism and run-down areas that the Government have so desperately aggravated.
9.40 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The debate, which was started modestly and quietly but in a determined way by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had a major intermission when the Wapping matter was discussed. We then returned to the topic on the Order Paper—crime prevention. I believe that it would be courteous and correct to make some observations about Wapping, particularly in view of the delegation which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) brought to see me this morning. Hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), gave various accounts of what happened at Wapping last Saturday night.
There were two marches on Saturday. One march, with about 3,500 people, came from the Temple, I believe, and a march of about 2,000 people came from Butchers row. There was a confluence of the two somewhere near Virginia street, in the midst of the demonstration. I point out to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that, as I understand it, the march from Butchers row had not been notified in the sense of the organisers having had a discussion with the police. Therefore, the police responded to the march without the due planning which I trust is a normal feature of such marches.
The two marches met somewhere near Virginia street. Part of the Butchers row group split up and worked its way
346
back towards Wellclose square. That group of about 1,000 played a significant role in the ensuing difficulties. It is possible that those people were not connected with the print unions which, on the whole, have conducted themselves with a fair amount of care.
Immediately the two marches met, there were significant disorders. There were missiles, smoke bombs and thunder flashes. It was necessary for the police to restore order. The mounted branch and riot shields were used also.
Significant public disorders took place. The police have a duty to seek to restore order. I do not wish to go any further into the details. I merely wish to lay before the House the fact that there was a significant problem with which the police had to grapple.
Mr. Leighton: An incident occurred and was dealt with by what I would have thought was an over-reaction. For the next two or three hours there were repeated baton charges and the use of the riot squad. That was completely unnecessary.
Mr. Shaw: Later, I shall make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman, as I did this morning. What I want to convey to the House now is that words have been put on the record. There is another record, a portion of which is in my mind, and I feel I should describe it.
There were major disorders, including the use of missiles, petrol bombs and thunder flashes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, scaffolding brackets, and so on were used also. Under those conditions, measures had to be taken to protect the police officers. Of the 1,774 police who were on duty at the scene, a small number were on horseback and a number used riot shields. The vast majority were standard, uniformed officers.
To prevent such problems occurring, it is necessary to have a resumption of a proper organising relationship between those who seek to continue the demonstration and dispute at Wapping and the police. Therefore, I was glad when the hon. Member for Newham, North-East brought his delegation this morning. The trade union leaders agreed to my suggestion that there should be a meeting with the deputy assistant commissioner, Mr. Wyn Jones. I understand that he will be available to see them tomorrow. I hope that the meeting takes place. An understanding of limits, number difficulties and a rational arrangement to allow peaceful demonstrations to continue is linked to the crime prevention element of this matter. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will know from our discussions on the Public Order Bill, the peaceful type of demonstrations should not cause any difficulty. The difficulty occurs when the demonstrations deteriorate into violence.
Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shaw: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have now spent considerable time on that matter. It would be right now for me to sum up the debate on crime prevention.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith was not unfair about the position we outlined although, in a rather mean sense, he suggested that we were not tackling the matter correctly and that it was all due to the Government' s economic policies. I hope that he will recognise that we have made some significant advances in manning the police force, providing resources to the police services and

347
increasing the number of crimes detected. The hon. Gentleman always complains about the percentage but he will find that the crime growth rate has continued to increase in times of high unemployment and high employment. There cannot be any simplistic connection between unemployment and crime levels. It is not fair either to say that certain disadvantaged groups are automatically more prone to criminal activities than others, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to say that.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith was absolutely right to say that there is a big opportunity for change with respect to residential caretakers on housing estates. I am glad to say that, under the Swansea crime prevention scheme, the local authority has put in caretakers. It is interesting that the cost of the caretakers was shared among the tenants at an increase of about 40p a week in their rent. They now have a man back on the premises instead of the automatic security arrangements which applied before. They do not have graffiti and damage. This has created much greater contentment. I hope that the Swansea crime prevention experiment will provide useful information and assistance for other local authorities to help with similar schemes.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said that crime prevention was something in which local people could lead—how right he was. The basis of crime prevention and the type of techniques available is that they should be tailored to community situations. Local authorities have an important role to play. I accept that the crime prevention panels, which at present do not automatically include local authority representation, could probably with advantage do so. I shall be meeting the crime prevention panels and I should like to make that suggestion and ascertain whether we can achieve that broader base for contact in the community. The hon. Member for Battersea rightly said that it was a matter of tailoring crime prevention to the community's policing arrangements and of seeking to reduce fear as well as the level of crime by introducing various techniques suitable to the particular location.
I discovered, when I saw the Wellingborough crime prevention special project, that the local authority was fully involved in the arrangements. Wellingborough, which has a proud record, is a town of 39,000 people with a great amount of motorised shopping. There is, therefore, a big problem with the centre car park, for which no charges are levied. Consequently, no one is on duty, and autocrime in Wellingborough is at a high level. There could be a connection between the two. A scheme was devised to ascertain whether the cost of putting a person in to look after the car park would be more than offset by the reduction in autocrime. That is what crime prevention is all about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) made an incredibly profound contribution to our debate. I very much respected his speech but it was misunderstood by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. My hon. Friend provided a measured response to the problem of crime prevention as shown by crime statistics in different age groups. My hon. Friend rightly said that there had been a fall in the number of burglaries—nationally,
348
a modest decrease of 2 per cent. but domestically, a decrease of 4 per cent. That is an encouraging and useful start.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) made his customary trenchant contribution. He was right to raise the question of the role of consent in the divided community. He illustrated that point vividly by referring to Northern Ireland. However, he knows that when the Ulster constabulary protects a march in Derry, that kind of march is of a very different quality from, say, a march in Downpatrick. The same police service has to seek to protect the community, whatever the divisions within it may be.
If there is an overriding rule in the handling by the police of public disorder it is that the rule of law is paramount and that the law must be maintained so that citizens may go about their lawful business. The public disorders at Wapping have been mentioned. The traditional right of people to demonstrate peacefully is long established and well recognised, but responsibility must accompany a right of that character. We must ensure that the community at large does not suffer as a consequence of such demonstrations.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred to the fear of crime and to the importance of the better design of council estates. With that in mind, a greater number of police forces are now offering architect liaison officers to councils throughout the country. They will provide a useful service. The hon. Gentleman referred to crime prevention panels. The Government are open to suggestions. I invite the hon. Gentleman and all other right hon. and hon. Members to take an interest in crime prevention and to bring forward suggestions from their constituents, local authorities or crime prevention panels. We want to encourage the sharing of good practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) referred to the successful use of neighbourhood watch schemes in his constituency. He attacked the permissiveness in our society. Although it is difficult to determine according to statistics, the scale of this problem has given rise to a reduction in self-discipline and general moral standards, which leads progressively towards criminality. I trust that my hon. friend will make use of any evidence that he has in his report to Sir James Hennessy's inquiry into the problems at Northeye prison. I noted his trenchant observation about management within the prison service. I shall pass it on to my noble Friend the Minister who has responsibility for these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred to the application that was made for a substantial increase of 28 officers in the Hampshire constabulary. When the matter was last reviewed in 1984–85 an application was made for three sergeants. The Home Secretary took the view then that the scope for civilianisation was such that he would not approve that application. The current application will be given the most careful consideration in discussions with the relevant inspector of constabulary. I hope that we shall be able to reach a decision in the not too distant future.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) had the remarkable good fortune of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) being able to intervene from this Dispatch Box and answer the point that he raised. It was a remarkable

349
achievement and I was grateful for it. The hon. Gentleman referred to sensitive treatment for rape victims. How right he is. Police forces are beginning to use methods that encourage more people to come forward and give details of the terrible crime of rape from which they have suffered. Sensitive treatment, yes; confidentiality, yes; and careful arrangements, yes, to ensure that police officers, many of whom are women, are trained to handle this sensitive matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) was in good form. He wants more immediate punishment. He was right to say that crime prevention must include the hazard of international terrorism. That has led this Government to take major international initiatives to try to reduce it.
I have referred to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea. I noted his remarks about racial attacks. I should not be too keen on pressure tests, involving the saturation of an area with large numbers of police. Nevertheless, I recognise that a certain amount of testing is needed. The crime prevention unit is undertaking an assessment of various scales of policing. This might help to shed some light on the problem that he raised. As for intermediate treatment, I understand that a research project is in hand, through our research planning unit. It has been placed with the University of Cambridge.
It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham refer to the vital support that is given to victims by victim support schemes and how important it is to encourage the voluntary sector. We shall do our best to ensure that the voluntary sector receives its fair share of the resources. The voluntary sector does special work with vulnerable groups. It is absolutely right, knowing how easy it is for criminals to latch on to the most vulnerable sectors of society, that we should encourage the voluntary sector to do more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) spoke about the importance of education and parents. There can be no better way of ensuring an improving standard of citizenship than to ensure that family life is improving. These two factors must be correlated and it is one of the tragedies of our time that pressures seem to have left so many families unable to sustain their primary duty to ensure that their children are brought up with a certain sense of their rights and responsibilities.
The burden of paperwork is a standard complaint whenever policemen gather or Members of Parliament come together. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and I will take due note of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is rather assiduous in castigating the Home Office if it becomes involved in creating too much paperwork for the police.
I would like to summarise my view of crime prevention. It is not a substitute for a law and order policy. Crime prevention is part of a law and order strategy. It cannot be used on its own but it can be made a creative way of ensuring that the fear of crime and the absolute levels of crime are contained. Crime is perhaps the major social disease of this and many other western countries. It is therefore correct that we should treat the disease in terms
350
of vaccination, inoculation and preventive medicine. The Government's crime prevention policies can therefore fit within such a policy.
We must deal with law and order across the spectrum. On the question of resources, the Government have increased police expenditure from £1·1 billion to £2·8 billion and that level of resource may be increased. More police officers are essential before crime prevention can work. Since 1979, an additional 14,000 officers have been recruited and there is now a civilian strength in support of the police of some 35,000. That figure is important in an employment sense and it releases officers to carry out more effective work.
We must have the correct body of law and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Public Order Bill are two such measures which will provide an important context for modern policing which, I trust, will stand the test of time. Finally, there must be a full range of sentences available to the courts and a courts procedure which ensures that proper justice is dispensed and that there is a capacity to handle the range of criminality in the judicial system. We have achieved that by making many changes in sentencing and, we should not forget, in non-custodial sentencing.
With these factors, crime prevention can produce important advantages for our citizens. Some schemes are already working and more schemes are being tested and there is a greater public awareness and a willingness to help in crime prevention than in any other aspect of policing. Crime prevention brings the police and the community together and provides a real focus for local issues and problems and allows these problems to receive special treatment and acceptance.
Crime prevention can work only when the police service is in charge. It is not a substitute for some form of vigilante operation. Crime prevention must be properly organised and must be the result of proper training. Crime prevention officers are experts in this area and crime prevention must be police-led. The community and the citizen can at last have the opportunity to play a part to ensure that their homes—whether that is a flat in a city centre or a detached house on the outskirts of a town—and their way of life are better protected against the ravages created by the rise in crime. Clearly, there are limitations.
There has been a modest drop in the number of domestic burglaries but the real problem, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith touched on at the beginning of the debate, is the sheer vastness of opportunist crime against property. Indeed, 95 per cent. of all crime is committed against property, whether that property is a handbag in a car or the contents of a house. It is just not feasible to expect there to be a uniformed police officer on tap round the clock to deal with that sort of crime. We must do more together to battle our way through opportunist crime. Crime prevention is not just a necessary but a leading component in our strategy. Crime prevention techniques are peculiarly effective in dealing with opportunist crime——
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Vietnamese Refugees (Hong Kong)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
10 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the plight of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.
Recently I visited the territory and had an opportunity, not for the first time, to visit refugee camps containing Vietnamese refugees. I visited the Chi Ma Wan camp for the second time, and the Bowring camp for the first time. They are both closed camps for Vietnamese refugees. I was deeply disappointed and depressed to find that refugees are still there after, perhaps, four years. Every hon. Member and everyone in Hong Kong would regard their conditions as being totally unacceptable. The residents of Hong Kong, and certainly the residents of the camps, believe the Vietnamese refugees to be a forgotten people.
I shall describe the conditions in those camps. There cannot be any real family life, because there is no privacy. The living space for a family in some of the camps is literally the bottom or top end of a bunk, and has been for a very long time. Those bunks stand next to one another in rows in sheds. The families have no privacy and live in totally unacceptable conditions.
Those conditions might have been acceptable if the refugees had had to live in them for only a short time. After all, the situation was, as I and my parliamentary colleagues saw, critical some years ago when boat loads of refugees were arriving. In those circumstances, it was understandable that such conditions should exist. But I raise this subject tonight because I believe that the solution to the problem is not to spend much more money on upgrading the camps and making them pleasanter to live in but to get rid of them completely. We should get those people out of Hong Kong and resettle them in other countries throughout the world.
The British Government have the key to opening that door so that many more people can be resettled. When the closed camp regime was first introduced in 1982, there were about 12,600 refugees in them. The number has now fallen to just over 9,000. Hong Kong has accepted about 14,500 refugees since 1975. It is instructive but rather depressing to look at the resettlement figures for the various countries.
At the Geneva conference we agreed that we should take some 10,000 refugees, which is 2,500 less than overcrowded Hong Kong has been prepared to take. In 1980 we took 6,076 refugees, in 1981 we took 1,775, in 1982 we took 241, in 1983 we took 101, and in 1984 we took 88. Last year, we took only 44 refugees from the 10,000 or so that are in Hong Kong.
By contrast the United States of America in 1982 took 6,657, in 1983 it took 2,065, in 1984 it took 1,540 and in 1985 it took 1,721. That represented 43·5 per cent. of the total number of resettled refugees.
In 1985 Canada took 1,302 refugees, which represented 32·9 per cent. of the total number of resettled refugees. Australia took 329 refugees, 8·3 per cent. of those resettled.
What a contrast it is that in 1985 we can take 44, but America took more than 1,700, Canada more than 1,300 and Australia 329. The Minister will tell us that the
352
Government agencies have accepted a commitment to accept an extra 500 family reunions at a rate of 40 a month. That will represent 500 additional places in Britain. I press the Minister to keep that rate of 40 a month. I should like to see that number increased beyond 40 per month and beyond the 500 places. The Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence on this issue and recommended that the Government should accept 40 refugees per month.
If the Government are prepared to accept this modest commitment, it would unlock the door for America, Canada, Australia and other countries to take more refugees. I am sure that our agencies would be only too happy to agree to this. That has been made clear to the Government, and indeed to others who have investigated the matter.
Refugee Action undertook a major investigation of this issue. I shall not go into the details of its report which was published while I was in Hong Kong. I believe that Lord Chitnis, who led the delegation which compiled the report, proposes to raise the subject in another place shortly.
I press the Government to extend the commitment to take 40 refugees a month. I would prefer the Government to accept 50 refugees a month, but the Government's commitment would unlock the door to other refugees being resettled in America, Canada or Australia. Many of the refugees prefer to go to Canada or America. Obviously, the Vietnamese have had previous contact with the Americans. They have a knowledge of America and they often have friends and relations there. Therefore, their attention is drawn to that country and many of the refugees would, undoubtedly, like to settle there. There is a heavy responsibility on the Government to take more of the burden—a small part of the burden—to encourage other Governments to accept more refugees.
The people of Hong Kong and the British people would find the conditions in the camps unacceptable in a civilised community. The Government in Hong Kong are spending tremendous amounts of money and taking enormous trouble to sustain those camps. Obviously, some improvements could be made, but the most striking thing about the camps which I visited was the marvellous work done there by many people.
Voluntary agencies such as Save the Children Fund, the Salvation Army and volunteers, some of them young people from Britain, are doing a marvellous job helping with education, for example, in the refugee camps. More could be done, but the priority is not to improve conditions in the camps—although I would love that—but to get people out and settled. If the Minister visits the camps, he will find that the refugees want to know when they can be resettled. They do not say that they want conditions improved. It is understandable that they want to get out, bearing in mind how long some of them have been there.
When most of the refugees arrived and were put in the camps, they thought that they would be allowed to settle in Hong Kong or other countries fairly rapidly. Institutionalisation has sapped many people's will as they have been in the camps for a long time. There is no doubt that some of the more recent arrivals are not genuine refugees in that they are running away because they have been persecuted. They come because they want the benefit of the economic conditions that they read or hear about in Hong Kong and other Western countries. The Hong Kong Government introduced the closed camp regime to dissuade people from going to Hong Kong.

353
I remember that, when boats crowded with people were floating about the seas in that part of the world, some countries took a much less charitable view than Hong Kong. It might be possible to criticise some of what has happened in Hong Kong, but it has undoubtedly been generous to the refugees as compared with some other countries in the region. It has gone to an enormous amount of trouble and expense to accommodate and resettle them.
Will the Minister please give us a commitment to continue resettlement in Britain of the modest number of refugees that I mentioned? Most of those who go to the camps, like refugees throughout the world, are the people with get up and go. We have found that with various refugee communities, a notable recent example being the Asians. They have entrepreneurial flair, a desire for education and a tremendous contribution to make to the countries in which they are resettled. That is one reason why countries such as Australia and Canada are only too happy to accept many more refugees than we have accepted.
I know from my meetings with people in the camps and from studies on them that they are able and willing people who will contribute to the communities in which they settle. I urge the Minister to give us that commitment and to tell other Governments that Britain has been prepared to extend her commitment. I am sure that the response from Canada. Australia, and the United States will enable us to close the camps. We should then resolve the problem and end some of the misery.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am sure that the whole House has listened with great care to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). His comments are based on first-hand knowledge as a result of his recent visit to Hong Kong, and I know that he has taken a considerable interest in this topic for many years. I welcome the opportunity to put the Government's views on the record.
The subject for debate which the hon. Gentleman has chosen concerns one of the sadder aspects of the conflicts that have troubled south-east Asia recently—the enormous exodus of refugees from Vietnam. I do not think that we have any reason to be ashamed of the part that we have played in efforts to solve the refugee problem with most of the burden falling on the authorities and people of Hong Kong.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the problem is still severe. Hong Kong still has more refugees than any other place of first asylum in the region. However, we are making steady progress towards a lasting solution. The total number of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong was over 50,000 in 1979. It dropped rapidly to under 13,000 by the end of 1981, largely as a result of Her Majesty's Government's initiative, and has since dropped gradually to 9,500 at the end of last year and just under 9,000 last month.
Since 1 January, 1,451 refugees have departed from Hong Kong for resettlement compared with 1,135 in 1985 and, one has to say that, some 525 have arrived against some 314 in 1985. The rise in departures is the result of increases in the numbers taken by the United Kingdom and other countries and I shall refer to those numbers in more detail later. As yet, there is no discernible reason for the increase in arrivals of some 40 per cent. or for the
354
increasing proportion of northern Vietnamese in those arriving. Therefore, we have a problem of arrivals that we have yet to discover the reason for.
Hong Kong, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is the only place of first asylum to introduce a policy of local resettlement. It has now agreed to resettle up to another 250 ethnic Chinese refugees from the camps in Hong Kong. The refugees being resettled will be drawn from the longest stayers, that is those who have been in the camps for more than six years, and they will be among those who have proved hardest to resettle elsewhere. That is a significant contribution by the Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong Goverment.
Hong Kong is the only place of first asylum in the region to contribute towards the upkeep of its refugees. Last year 100 million Hong Kong dollars out of the 150 million Hong Kong dollars spent on refugees came directly from the Hong Kong Government. That is in stark contrast to Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, which all insist that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees pays the total cost of the refugees.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Hong Kong Government have never turned any refugee away. All who wish to land are allowed to do so. Voluntary departures increased significantly last year, but in order for those voluntary departures to take place we know that refugees made their decision to depart freely and without any form of coercion. We cannot, of course, compel refugees to remain in Hong Kong if they no longer wish to do so.
I shall turn now to the United Kingdom's contribution. We have accepted some 12,500 refugees since 1975, all from Hong Kong. Last September—the hon. Gentleman was less than fair in his comments in this area—we announced relaxed criteria for family reunion under which some 420 refugees would be taken from Hong Kong. So far, 250 have been resettled under that programme. That meets our target of 40 per month since arrivals began in November.
I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that our present priority must be the reunification of Vietnamese families which have members in Hong Kong and in this country. At this stage we are not able to enter into commitments to take further refugees from Hong Kong. Whether we might be able to do so in the future will be decided in the light of the willingness shown by other resettlement countries to respond to Hong Kong's need and of all the other circumstances at the time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a possible change in the monthly intake, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rather than for me. The principal determinant of the rate of resettlement in the United Kingdom is the availability of accommodation for refugees. The voluntary agencies are making great efforts in this regard, but the difficulties involved in accommodating 40 refugees monthly would obviously be far greater if the number was increased. There are difficulties in that area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree.
In line with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we are pressing other resettlement countries to take additional refugees from Hong Kong to maximise the effect of our decision to resettle further numbers of

355
refugees. In other words, we try to multiply up, with help from other countries, the number that we are prepared to accept.
Mr. Wriggleswo rose——
Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment, I shall of course give way.
As well as the main resettlement countries, we have approaached other countries that have taken Indo-Chinese refugees in the past. Ministers have raised the whole question of further resettlement with their opposite numbers in other countries, and we have made regular representations through our diplomatic missions.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees accords priority to the resettlement of refugees from Hong Kong, and has approached many Governments who seek his advice when allocating their refugee resettlement quotas. They have been very supportive in our efforts to help in the resettlement process.
So far, we have had a number of encouraging responses as a result of the initiative that we launched last September. Australia has agreed to accept for settlement a further 200 refugees, Canada 50, Finland 70, the Netherlands 80, New Zealand 10 and Sweden 100. The United States, which resettles more Indo-Chinese refugees than any other country, is currently accepting refugees at an annual rate of some 1,800–200 more than the previous year's ceiling. We are extremely grateful to all those countries for their efforts to help Hong Kong, and it is fair to claim that much of the credit for that additional resettlement is due to this Government's initiative that was taken in September. We have indications that a number of other countries are likely to respond favourably, and we are of course continuing the pressure.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am pleased to hear what the Minister has just reported, but does not he understand that waiting for the response of other Governments, before giving a commitment beyond the end of 1986, makes it much more difficult for other Governments to respond in the way that we would like? It is almost a circular problem. They are waiting to see what the British Government will do, and the British Government are waiting to see what they will do. Will not the Minster break the circle by making it clear that we will maintain that commitment after to the end of this year?
Mr. Eggar: We did exactly that in September. It was our initiative to take the extra resettlement cases, and our diplomatic initiative following that decision in the White Paper, that enabled us to persuade other countries to take more refugees than they would otherwise have done. I have already said that we are discussing the possibility of other countries taking further refugees. I do not think that at present it is quite appropriate for us to make any announcement about our future intentions. This is not only widely accepted by other countries but it is also understood by the UNHCR.
The presence of refugees in Hong Kong camps is one of the many sad aspects of the Indo-Chinese refugee problem. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, in an ideal world refugee camps, whether closed or open, would simply not exist. But neither I nor any other Minister could say that it was satisfactory or desirable to have 4,600
356
refugees in closed camps and slightly more than 4,000 in open camps. Refugee situations are never ideal, but having said that we must be realistic and accept, as did the hon. Gentleman, that the Hong Kong Government have done a great deal to make the life of the refugee as bearable as possible.
I know that many hon. Members find the whole idea of closed camps, of depriving innocent people of their liberty, repugnant. This Government dislike the policy. If, however, we were to end the policy now, the result would be that many more refugees would set out from Vietnam for Hong Kong, many in unseaworthy craft, with inevitable and tragic loss of life. Those who reached Hong Kong—because there would be some—would place an enormous burden on the resources of that already overcrowded territory. The result of ending our closed camp policy would be more human suffering in this tragic and troubled area of the world. The House will probably agree that in the circumstances the present policy is the only reasonable one to pursue.
Doubts have been expressed in some quarters about whether the closed camp policy has worked. Anyone who looks objectively at the statistics will see that as soon as the closed camp policy was introduced there was a considerable fall in numbers of arrivals in Hong Kong as compared with arrivals in other parts of the region.
Conditions in the camps have been the subject of much comment in press and Parliament. The Hong Kong Government and Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to ensuring that refugees are adequately cared for in the camps. I should like at this stage to quote remarks made by Mr. Paul Hartling, the last United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when he visited Bowring closed camp, the camp that the hon. Gentleman also visited. He said that he did not like the idea of closed camps but that inside the Bowring camp he found
"the circumstances, the conditions, very encouraging".
He compared the situation of the children at the Bowring camp with that of some of the refugees in camps in other parts of south east Asia who, he said, were starving, sick, destitute and had tears in their eyes. His conclusion was that the Hong Kong authorities and the voluntary agencies were doing a very good job, for which he was very grateful. That was not a Minister speaking, but the last United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
I submit to the House that conditions in the closed camps are at least as good as those in other refugee camps in the region.
The hon. Gentleman quite rightly commented favourably on the work done by voluntary agencies in the refugee camps in Hong Kong. This work is of the greatest importance. I would like to associate myself totally with the hon. Gentleman's remarks and with the praise that he gave to the individuals from a number of different countries who are working for the voluntary agencies. I hope that they will not be discouraged by some recent and, in our view, unjust criticisms of their work.
I cannot, in conclusion, let pass the opportunity to express the Government's admiration for the quite remarkable efforts made by the people and authorities of Hong Kong in caring for so many refugees. They have given temporary asylum to over 100,000 Vietnamese since 1975. In 1979 alone, over 68,000 boat people arrived in Hong Kong. No refugee has ever been turned away. In the words of Mr. Paul Hartling, at a press conference in Hong Kong a year ago,

357
"We are very grateful to Hong Kong—to the authorities, the Government here and to the people because Hong Kong has given asylum and never, never refused to give asylum to refugees coming here and never forced them back against their will, and treated them well, but of course, they would like, as we would like, to see a solution—a durable solution, for these refugees."
358
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the whole House will echo those final words of Mr. Hurtling and agree that we need a durable solution to the refugee problem in Hong Kong.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o' clock.

TRANSPORT
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Air Service Agreement
  Air Service Agreement
  Aircraft (Evacuation Times)
  Aircraft (Evacuation Times)
  Milk Floats
  Milk Floats
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  BAA (Financing Limit)
  BAA (Financing Limit)
  Compulsory Purchase
  Compulsory Purchase
WALES
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Orthopaedic Surgeons
  Radiotherapy Treatment
  Radiotherapy Treatment
  Forms (Bilingual Format)
  Forms (Bilingual Format)
  Special Education
  Special Education
  Peripatetic Teachers
  Peripatetic Teachers
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Physical Education
  Physical Education
  Students
  Students
  University Lecturers
  University Lecturers
  Super-Computers
  Super-Computers
  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research
  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research
  Council for Educational Technology
  Council for Educational Technology
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Restart Scheme
  Restart Scheme
  Prison Visitors
  Prison Visitors
  Vocational Qualifications
  Vocational Qualifications
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  United Nations General Assembly
  United Nations General Assembly
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Prisoners (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Local Radio
  Local Radio
  Dog Fighting
  Dog Fighting
  News International Plant, Wapping
  News International Plant, Wapping
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Financial Services Bill
  Financial Services Bill
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Monopolies and Mergers
  Monopolies and Mergers
  US (Trade Talks)
  US (Trade Talks)
  ECGD (Bank Guarantee Scheme)
  ECGD (Bank Guarantee Scheme)
  Computers (Government Support)
  Computers (Government Support)
  London University (Computer)
  London University (Computer)
PRIME MINISTER
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  United States Bases
  United States Bases
  EC (Intergovernmental Agreement)
  EC (Intergovernmental Agreement)
  IRA (United States Donations)
  IRA (United States Donations)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Libya
  Libya
  Seed Certification Standards
  Seed Certification Standards
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Ionising Radiations
  Ionising Radiations
  Nuclear Fallout
  Nuclear Fallout
  London University (Computer)
  London University (Computer)
  Top Salaries Review Body (Report)
  Top Salaries Review Body (Report)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
SCOTLAND
  Soviet Nuclear Accident
  Soviet Nuclear Accident
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
  Fair Wages Resolution
  Fair Wages Resolution
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Young Workers
  Young Workers
  Matrimonial Interdicts
  Matrimonial Interdicts
  Atmospheric Radiation
  Atmospheric Radiation
DEFENCE
  Civilian Patients
  Civilian Patients
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Type 2400 Submarine
  Type 2400 Submarine
  ALARM Missile
  ALARM Missile
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Royal Ordnance plc
  End-user Certificates
  End-user Certificates
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Incident Statistics (RUC and Army Personnel)
  Incident Statistics (RUC and Army Personnel)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Intimidation
  Intimidation
ENERGY
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Windscale Plant (Fire)
  Windscale Plant (Fire)
  Bradwell Nuclear Power Station
  Bradwell Nuclear Power Station
  Dungeness Power Station
  Dungeness Power Station
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Pension Plans
  Personal Pension Plans
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Foreign Ministers Meeting
  Foreign Ministers Meeting
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Fatah Supreme Military Council
  Fatah Supreme Military Council
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Agricultural Produce (Import Ban)
  Agricultural Produce (Import Ban)
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Convalescent Facilities (Hampshire)
  Convalescent Facilities (Hampshire)
  Health Notice (86)11
  Health Notice (86)11
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions and Prices
  Pensions and Prices
  AIDS
  AIDS
  NHS Disciplinary Inquiries
  NHS Disciplinary Inquiries
  NHS (Residential Property)
  NHS (Residential Property)
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Benefits (Coventry)
  Benefits (Coventry)
  Crown Immunity
  Crown Immunity
  Primary Health Care
  Primary Health Care
  Iodate Tablets
  Iodate Tablets
  Patients
  Patients
ENVIRONMENT
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Houses (Multiple Occupancy)
  Houses (Multiple Occupancy)
  Radioactive Isotopes
  Radioactive Isotopes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Intervention Stores
  Intervention Stores
  Badgers
  Badgers
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fish Quotas
  Fish Quotas
  Beef
  Beef
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Rural Economy
  Rural Economy
  EC Farm Budget
  EC Farm Budget
  Horticultural Development Council
  Horticultural Development Council
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Lamb Prices
  Lamb Prices
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
  EC (Structure Proposals)
  EC (Structure Proposals)
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Dry Sow Stalls
  Dry Sow Stalls
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Spanish Corn and Sorghum
  Spanish Corn and Sorghum
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Food From Britain
  Food From Britain
  Imports (Radiation)
  Imports (Radiation)
  EEC Stocks
  EEC Stocks
  Herd Buy-out Schemes
  Herd Buy-out Schemes
  Agricultural) Advice
  Agricultural) Advice
  EEC Price Review
  EEC Price Review
  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Veal Calves
  Veal Calves
  Surpluses (Price Fixing)
  Surpluses (Price Fixing)
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Tributes to the late Lord Shinwell
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it is with regret that Members of the House will have heard of the death last night of Lord Shinwell. He was elevated to the peerage in 1970 after a long and distinguished career as a Member in another place which stretched right back to 1922, when he was first elected as Member for Linlithgow. He was a junior Minister under Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 and 1929, and became Secretary for Mines in the troubled years of 1930 and 1931. He returned as the Minister of Fuel and Power in 1945, and served as Secretary of State for War in 1947 and Minister of Defence in 1950 and 1951.
He was made a Privy Counsellor in 1945 and a Companion of Honour in 1965. He was, as so many of your Lordships would testify, a very considerable orator who in his day could sway audiences in a most remarkable way. He was also, of course—and I think this should be recognised as something which I very much admired from a rather different standpoint—an impassioned believer in his own party, the Labour Party.
But our memories of Lord Shinwell in this House are more recent. He was active among us until a matter of months ago, and it was a great pleasure to all Members of the House when, in October 1984, many of us gathered in the Royal Gallery to celebrate his 100th birthday. I shall always count it a great privilege to have made the presentation to him on your Lordships' behalf. We all remember his very remarkable speech on that occasion.
His contributions from the Back Benches were always entertaining; his interventions timely, and his views heartfelt. He made us all feel encouragingly young, not just by his own longevity but by his own example. We shall miss him very much, and we extend our condolences to his family.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we on this side of the House greatly appreciate the opportunity to pay tribute to Emanuel Shinwell. He bridged the century during which the Labour Party developed from the Labour Representation Committee and the Independent Labour Party into one of the great parties of state, and he played an important part in that historic process. We recalled when he celebrated his 100th birthday that when he was born in 1884 Queen Victoria occupied the Throne and Mr. Gladstone was in No. 10 Downing Street. He played an active part in the early political struggles out of which subsequent Labour Governments emerged—Governments in which he himself was a distinguished if occasionally controversial Minister.
818
In the United States they speak of "the journey from log cabin to White House." "Manny" Shinwell's career was in this tradition. He was the archetypal rebel who became the respected parliamentarian. He was the anti-establishment figure who became a pillar of the establishment. He was the pugnacious Clydesider who became a great Minister of Defence. He will be remembered as one of the great parliamentary debaters of his time, as the noble Viscount has just said. It is said that he came here with certain views about the future of this House; but he mellowed, and I think he enjoyed his time here. He certainly enhanced the qualities of our debates. None of us ceased to wonder at his capacity to the very end to deliver cogent and articulate speeches without a note in his hand.
He was not always an easy man to deal with, and he could be caustic in argument. He never accepted anything on its face value, and he would take a contrary view and become extremely angry at times. He could also be very kind and helpful, as the noble Viscount has just said, especially to young Members. I recall that after answering Questions for the first time in another place he came to see me and said that I had done quite well. I asked him whether he had any advice to give me. He said, "As a matter of fact, I have. You gave them far too much information".
He never forgot the rock from which he was hewn. He had the great qualities of his remarkable race. He had wit and resilience, and tenacity, too; and he was a great champion of Israel. When he responded in this House to the tributes paid to him on his 100th birthday he made a characteristic speech which, as the noble Viscount has said, we all much enjoyed. I recall that he ended by saying
"I look forward, Members of the House of Lords, to a civilised society".
This, my Lords, notwithstanding all the argument, all the struggle, all the confrontation, is what he fought for in his political life, and there can be no greater tribute to a statesman than that.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches would like to pay our tribute, and I would start by echoing everything that has been said so far so felicitously by both the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Labour Party. It is very difficult indeed—nigh impossible—to pay anything like an adequate tribute to such a great man in the time which your Lordships consider would be appropriate When his lifespan was so enormous, his experience so varied and his qualities so great. It really is only possible to pick out one or two things, and to remember him by those. If I were asked one thing by which I would remember him, it was his doggedness in fighting for fairness for his fellow man throughout his life, from the beginning, in very difficult circumstances in the East End of London, through Scotland and back to England—fighting the whole time.
I was privileged to know "Manny" Shinwell and to work with him for over 40 years. I am very proud to have enjoyed his friendship during more recent years in this House. He continued to the very end to be able to think clearly and constructively on his feet, and to be helpful in every way he could in terms of personal relationships and to brave through some of his

819
personal domestic difficulties. Indeed, if I may trouble your Lordships with a fairly recent personal connection, it was when, not many months ago, we were in the Tea Room together discussing the problems which beset one at home when one has lived to that great age. He said to me, "You will find that out yourself, Jack. I dismissed this and said, "That is very kind of you, but I shall not be here to experience that". He said, "Oh, yes, you will"—and we had a bet on it—"and, moreover, so will I, and I will come and collect". That would have meant him collecting in something like his 125th year! Alas, he will not be able to collect his bet, but he had that spirit until the very end.
We send our deepest sympathy to his family, but at the same time we rejoice that "Manny" Shinwell was able to continue his fighting for his fellow man and his service to the country right into his 102nd year.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross-Benches should like to be associated with the remarks already expressed about our friendly neighbour, and with the sympathy extended to his family. Lord Shinwell was a great patriot, and his going marks the end of an era.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, Bishops were not the natural companions of our dear friend "Manny" Shinwell, but we on these Benches should all like to associate ourselves with what has been said so finely about one who I think of as a splendid Member of this House. He taught us many things about the way in which this House should conduct its business, and we always listened to him with the greatest pleasure.
It seems only a very short time ago that we heard him holding forth from the Cross-Benches with great eloquence and a very powerful voice. That I shall not forget; and I am sure that there will be others, too, who will be thankful for his great contribution to this House—over which he always had a very typical question mark.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, this House will never seem the same now "Manny" is no longer here sitting beside me. He is pictured as the bare-knuckle fighter, but there was in him an extraordinary kindness and sympathy. We had a very great friendliness, and I certainly shall be among the many who miss him tremendously. One moment I shall always remember, and that was when the reception committee assembled to receive him for his 100th birthday—and could not find him. He had beaten them to it. He was in a nook just outside, watching them with glee as they searched.

Post Office Customer Services
3.11 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask the Post Office to devise means of reducing
820
the queues in Post Offices particularly for those collecting pensions and other state benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the question of reducing queues in post offices is an operational matter for the Post Office Board. However, I am aware that the Post Office is continually looking for ways to improve the quality of the service that it offers to its customers in post offices.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I suppose that I must thank the noble Lord for his reply; but, really, does he not think that when there is a Question a week on the Post Office and its service to the community—or nearly a Question a week; he may pull me up on that—the Government might press them to improve the service? On my particular Question, is he aware that our local supermarkets in Scotland are able to guess and to know from experience when there will be a crowd and to engage extra people at the check-outs? As part of his duty, can he not tell the Post Office to do this?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Post Office has made a number of changes to alleviate the problem which the noble Lord raises. For example, from October 1984 pensioners have been given Monday in addition to Thursday as a payment day. Child benefits are paid on Tuesdays and the bulk of unemployment benefit payments are made on Fridays and Saturdays. The Post Office has put to the Post Office unions a package of measures to improve the flexibility of both full-time and part-time staff. These matters are under discussion.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those affected, particularly those in the pension queues, are some of the least able in the community to be able to stand waiting for long periods? As my noble friend has said that the Post Office are continually looking for ways of solving this problem, will the Government suggest to the Post Office that it institutes a competition to solve it, with perhaps the special issue of a commemorative stamp to honour the winner who produces the effective solution?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as your Lordships also will be aware, the Post Office has to deal with some 8½ million pensioners each week throughout their 22,500 post offices. Suggestions as to how the perceived queueing time can be reduced are continually given consideration. I have told the House what is in progress between the board and the unions, and I look forward, as noble Lords look forward, to a successful outcome of those negotiations.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would it not help if encouragement were given for stamps to be sold at other outlets? Is the noble Lord aware that last Saturday afternoon I heard a tourist being told at Victoria Station by someone in a bookstall that he could not buy a stamp until Tuesday because the post office closed at midday, the next day was Sunday and

821
the day following that was the bank holiday? How is this going to help tourism?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, while the subject of postage stamps is very wide of the Question that the noble Lord has put down on the Order Paper, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of the answer that I gave to your Lordships on 14th April (at col. 409 of Hansard) when I said:
"there are some 12,000 shops and hotels which currently sell stamps in addition to the network of 21,000 post offices that are supplemented by 8,000 stamp vending machines."
I should think that that was a reasonable number of stamp outlets even over a holiday period.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend who asked this Question will forgive me if I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the present counter system used by the Post Office is that which was recommended by me when I had the honour to be chairman of the Post Office Board's Quality of Service Committee? Is the Minister also aware that that system was only recommended after detailed research? It was found much better to have generic counter clerks doing everything rather than to have separate queues for pensioners and others. It was the best system and it has in fact been followed by many banks. Is the Minister further aware that if there are now queues, that can only mean either that there are not sufficient people serving at the counter, that the Post Office is not open for long enough or that it is not open at the right times?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not quite sure how I should answer the noble Lord in response to his first supplementary question other than to say that what he introduced into the Post Office has been adapted as conditions have changed. The second question that he raises I cannot accept because what he is saying does not follow. What we have to make sure of and what the Post Office is trying to do is to ensure that there is the highest possible standard among those who serve behind the counters, that as many people are able to be dealt with as possible, and that the negotiations which are now in place with the Post Office unions with regard to the flexibility of existing staff and with the employment of part-time staff to even out the peaks and the troughs, remain one of the best chances that the Post Office has of meeting the surges in demand.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that it is not the length of the queue but the length of the time in the queue that is important, and that in some post offices where a single queueing system has been introduced the queue itself might be quite lengthy but the service really quite quick?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that observation. She is of course quite right. Matters are devolved to the local management to achieve the best possible service in each locality. There can be no overall system imposed because conditions vary quite considerably.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Would he be prepared to ask the Post Office Board whether on those days when pensioners in some parts of the country have to queue and wait, the post office should anticipate the queue, apologise and explain that that is the result of shortage of staff.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is not a question of shortage of staff at all. I have said on three occasions this afternoon that the Post Office are in negotiation with the unions to employ more flexibly their existing staff, and to employ part-time staff to even out the peaks. It is the wish of all those involved in serving the Post Office's customers to give a good and adequate service as it is equally the responsibility of the board to do so.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, will my noble friend be relentless in pursuing the Post Office to see that it carries out the suggestion from the other side of the House that the solution to this problem is adequate staff? If one postman in a rural area has influenza it means that the whole area gets its letters late. There are lots of people looking for jobs. Why does not the Post Office use spare men to supplement the services which are short?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not wish to be unkind to my noble friend, but the question of deliveries is a little different from the original Question. I repeat that the Post Office management are trying to secure with the unions agreements which will ensure greater flexibility in the use of existing staff in various duties and the addition of part-time staff. I look forward to the Post Office and the unions coming to a satisfactory agreement on these matters which I have little doubt will alleviate the conditions which noble Lords have described to me this afternoon.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Post Office performs a number of duties and functions on behalf of the state, at some considerable cost in terms of wages, space and so on, and more particularly in relation to pensions? Is the noble Lord quite sure that the state remunerates the Post Office adequately for the performance of such services, which involve it in very heavy expense?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think your Lordships should be aware that the Post Office offers throughout its 22,500 offices some 150 different product transactions. Pensions, though accounting for payments to some 8,500,000 people, are just one of the 150. The Government have certain overall duties in regard to the Post Office, which itself has a statutory duty to provide its services economically and efficiently, while having regard to the social needs of the United Kingdom. It is for the management of the Post Office to deal with wages and other attendant costs.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the problems posed in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is the closing of too many sub-post offices, which has increased the pressure on others?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is not true.

Cyprus: Settlement Initiative
3.23 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I beg leave—after the lengthy exchange on the previous Question I nearly said "at last"—to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on their discussions with President Kyprianou and the position in regard to a possible rapprochement between the two parts of Cyprus.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, accompanied by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State, had discussions on Cyprus with President Kyprianou on 7th April. We remain convinced that the United Nations Secretary-General's initiative offers the best chance of a settlement on Cyprus. We continue to urge the two sides to co-operate with his efforts.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will she convey to the House the comforting assurance that Ministers will seek, not only through the United Nations but through the Commonwealth and by direct representations, to persuade all concerned (and not least President Kyprianou) to eschew intransigence and to accept that the best solution lies in a federal structure with appropriate reserve powers and safeguards for the two zones? Will she urge the pursuit of security through reconciliation, thereby removing or at least substantially abating the need for reliance on foreign troops and external guarantees? Would not this be the best way to open a new and happier chapter in the long history of this lovely but troubled land?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that we hope very much that the negotiations under the Secretary-General will continue. We shall do all that we can to support his efforts, as we have done since his initiative began, because we believe that he is best placed to see what we should all like to see—a lasting, peaceful and just settlement of this problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we would support the Government's efforts to secure a settlement of this extremely difficult problem, can the noble Baroness say whether in the discussions which took place between her right honourable friend and President Kyprianou, and indeed during the discussions which took place in Athens two or three weeks before that when Sir Geoffrey Howe and Mr. Shultz were there, the stumbling block was the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island? Is that not the real difficulty?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said in his support for the Secretary-General's efforts. There are a number of
824
problems, and one in particular which has been raised by the Greek Cypriots is the withdrawal of Turkish troops. Of course that is not the only problem. A number of others have been raised by the Turkish Cypriot side. However, this is a matter for negotiation under the Secretary-General and we must hope that he will persist in his efforts, knowing that he has the strongest support of the British Government.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, while the reply of the noble Baroness is very satisfactory, is she aware that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Broxbourne and that the last thing we want is a federated state? What ought to happen in Cyprus is the carrying out of the policy of the United Nations and the Government; that is, a powerful nation within the Commonwealth.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we should all like to see a lasting settlement of the Cyprus issue. Cyprus is within the Commonwealth and of course we all hope that it will remain within the Commonwealth. How the details are worked out will be a matter for negotiating parties.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many Greek Cypriots who were forced to flee from what is now the Turkish zone, losing not only their property but in many cases their means of livelihood; yet they have received no compensation at all?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am aware that there is a problem of refugees within Cyprus, and of course any lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem would deal with that issue as well as the others.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, will my noble friend on the Front Bench inform and instruct my friend opposite that a federal state is in fact what he calls a united state and that there is no dichotomy or divergence between those two concepts? May I further ask her whether the best way of securing the removal of Turkish troops is to allay the anxieties which led to their introduction?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think it would be very unwise, in a delicate situation, for me to be drawn into what may be a final outcome of a very difficult problem. There are a number of difficult issues. My noble friend touched on one or two of them and the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, touched on others. This is a matter for settlement by the parties to the dispute, and one must hope they will be able to reach agreement upon them.

Post Offices: Provision of Directories
3.29 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make representations to the Post Office about the importance of keeping sets of telephone directories available for consultation in principal post offices.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, no. The provision of telephone directories is a commercial matter between the Post Office and British Telecommunications plc, and I understand that neither organisation is under any obligation to make them available in this particular way.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that revelation about the indifference of the Post Office to the convenience of the general public? Is he aware that for many years, for as long as I can remember—and that goes back a long way—principal post offices have supplied, among other things, national sets of telephone directories which enabled people not only to verify telephone numbers but, if they were uncertain about addresses, initials or names of firms, to check these before they posted their letters, thus assisting the Post Office in its primary duty of correctly delivering correspondence? It seems very peculiar that this duty has somehow vanished.
May I ask my noble friend in addition whether, if it is impossible to persuade that extraordinary monster, British Telecom, to supply telephone directories, the Government will ask post offices to supply sets of Kelly's Post Office Directories, which used not to be necessary but in the new circumstance is?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend asks me a number of questions. Although I accept that perhaps his memory goes back a little further than does my own, he will recall that since British Telecom was split off from the Post Office under the Act different responsibilities accrue to each of those two entities. While the telephone directory is provided by British Telecom and it is obliged under its licence conditions to make it available to anyone who requests a directory, it can, of course, make a charge. The telephone directory is primarily for those seeking to use the telephone services rather than for use as an address service. If the Post Office wished to provide additional services to its customers, it would, of course, have to pay British Telecom for the books, though the charge is nominal. There are some 1,500 principal offices, most of which have telephone directories. The Post Office is, of course, under an obligation to ensure that it is cost-effective and meets its customers' needs rather than the needs of other services' customers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the customers are not supposed to use the addresses in the telephone directories, why on earth are they put in?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is really not worthy of the noble Baroness, since I said that the primary role of the telephone directory is for the users of telephones and not the general public, who can go to the public libraries if they wish to use other services contained in the directory. There is no contractual obligation upon the Post Office to provide that service.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord take this opportunity to remind his noble friend, and also perhaps the House, that British Telecom has, in fact, been privatised and, as he said, is under no commercial obligation to provide the Post Office with
826
telephone directories, except upon the payment of cash by the Post Office? Will the noble Lord therefore admit to the House that there are disadvantages in the system of private monopoly which did not exist when two public enterprises co-operated successfully together?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is no disadvantage whatsoever in the privatisation of British Telecom, which is bringing a wider number of products to the benefit of both commercial and private consumers. So far as the Post Office is concerned, it is serving a wider number of customers and delivering larger amounts of mail at very good rates commensurate with anything that can be found in Europe. The benefits are plain for all to see.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister agree that his Answer shows an extraordinary dog in the manger attitude by both British Telecom and the Post Office? Is it the Government's view that all element of public service has now been removed from British Telecom and the Post Office, even though they have been privatised? If so, this appears to me a very strong argument for renationalising.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is no dog in the manger attitude on the port of either of those two organisations. In response to an earlier Question this afternoon, and again on 14th April and 23rd April, I reminded your Lordships of the statutory duties of the Post Office, one of which is to take care of social needs. So far as British Telecom is concerned, there is the Director-General of Oftel. There are also the consumer advisory committees to safeguard exactly the things of which the noble Lord is speaking. These matters are dealt with through those channels and have not given rise to undue difficulty.
Lord Parry: My Lords, are the addresses of those organisations in the book?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the addresses of the organisations to which I have referred are available very widely through a number of agencies, including Citizens' Advice Bureaux, public libraries, post offices, telephone offices and, indeed, my own department.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that one of the things most constantly said in criticism of the Soviet Union and its appalling secrecy is that it is the only country in which telephone directories are not publicly available? Are we to understand that Her Majesty's Ministers and British Telecom are now in a conspiracy to set up a totalitarian regime in this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord's last question, following his statement of how he sees various things across the world, is not really correct. Telephone directories are provided. Were some of the public less inclined to vandalism, more copies of telephone directories would still be in the places where the Post Office provides them at moderate cost to itself, with the help of British Telecom.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord not appreciate that his last reply is the one that we should have had at the outset? It is a question of vandalism. One cannot find telephone directories in vandalised telephone boxes when one wants to make a call. Therefore, is not a post office the only sensible place to which to go and is it not an obligation on the Post Office to pay for this service? The noble Lord surely ought to get in touch with the Director-General of Oftel and ensure that he makes arrangements to pay the Post Office to have a supply of telephone directories.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if one asking who is to pay, then who, indeed, is to pay?—certainly not the Director-General of Oftel. It is the consumer who, in the end, pays and both British Telecom and the Post Office, through local management arrangements, seek to provide the services that the public want at a proper and reasonable cost. I believe they do exactly that.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, will my noble friend be relentless in his pursuit of these monstrous organisations, in persuading them that, whether they are privatised or not, they are there to serve the public?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I believe, and I think that most of your Lordships believe, if you look into your heart of hearts, that both the Post Office with its 180,000 staff and all the staff of British Telecom seek to do exactly that and to satisfy their customers.

Life Sentence Prisoners and Parole
3.38 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will direct the Parole Board, in the case of a recommendation for the release of a prisoner who was originally sentenced to one or more terms of life imprisonment, to include a statement that they have interviewed the prisoner and a statement of the board's view as to the likelihood or otherwise of the prisoner when released inflicting injury on another person.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, whenever the Parole Board considers the case of a life sentence prisoner its main concern is the protection of the public. It may arrange for one of its members to interview the prisoner; but whether to exercise that right in a particular case is and should remain a matter for the board. The board would not recommend release if it had any reason to believe that the prisoner presented an unacceptable risk to the public; and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not accept a recommendation for release unless he, too, was satisfied that the risk was acceptable.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a disadvantage of the present procedure that, whereas
828
the judge who imposes the original sentence inevitably and invariably sees the man or woman concerned, as my noble friend has said there is no obligation on the Parole Board to see him or her before suggesting a modification of the sentence? In the light of the later part of his Answer, are the Government really happy with the number of prisoners released on the recommendation of the Parole Board who fairly soon thereafter commit serious further offences?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, nobody could be satisfied if anybody ever released from any sort of sentence immediately commits another offence. But for life licences the reconviction rates for those released are much lower than the average for all those released from custody. For example, only about 12 per cent. of life sentence prisoners released from 1973 to 1980 were convicted of a further offence within two years, compared with 58 per cent. of adult males released from custody. It is important that each case is considered on its merits. The Parole Board considers a wide variety of advice; from prison officers, who see these people regularly; from medical officers; from psychiatrists if necessary; and from probation officers. Indeed, as my noble friend has said, the trial judge also has a view. I believe it is done with great care.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is not this Question a little offensive to the very worthy members of the Parole Board, who carry out their difficult duties with great skill and great feeling but nevertheless with the proper protection of the public in mind? Is it really a question in any noble Lord's mind that they do not have in their consideration of a recommendation the very fact that crimes may be recommitted, especially crimes of violence? Have we not proper confidence in the Parole Board?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government certainly have confidence in the Parole Board, which undertakes a very difficult task. I hope that the ways I have described, by the efforts of the reporting system through prison officers and others, and all the documentation that is gone into, lead to the best possible results.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, do not the figures given by the noble Lord the Minister a moment ago indicate that overall the activities of the Parole Board have been quite remarkably successful?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. The figure of 12 per cent. is profoundly different from the percentage for others. I think the noble Lord is quite right.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as a former member of the Parole Board, may I ask the Minister to confirm that if a life prisoner is released and then commits a further offence he is brought back to prison forthwith?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly the case that a life sentence prisoner is only released on licence. He may be recalled at any time.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware of what causes the grave apprehension

829
that lies behind the original Question asked, quite rightly, by the noble Lord? It is not a question of sentences—people do not look at that. When someone has murdered and then escapes, that is bad enough; but if he is allowed to walk out free on parole and then slays again I say to the Minister that he would have a very difficult task to tell the relatives of a person who has been slain by a murderer who has been released by the Parole Board that the Parole Board is doing a fairly good job.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked just now about figures and suggested that the Parole Board was doing a good job. One can amplify the figures even more if one talks about murder by saying that in England and Wales since 1946 only six people have been convicted of murder after having been released on licence. One additional murder was committed in a prison in Northern Ireland. I think that puts it into perspective.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Lord quoted a figure of 12 per cent. of lifers who reoffend. Will he confirm that the number of that 12 per cent. who commit a really serious crime is extremely small, and that the hulk of those 12 per cent. committed fairly petty offences?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may well be right. I gave just now the figures for those who have been convicted of murder after being released on licence. For homicide, the figure grows only to 13 per cent. They are very small numbers.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the reintroduction of the death penalty would safely take care of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that issue was decided in another place not so long ago.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the fact that it is possible to be highly critical of a system without being offensive to the people who have very difficult duties to discharge in an inadequate system? Although he does not appear to regard very seriously the number of people sentenced to life imprisonment who are subsequently released on the public, is he aware that every one of those is someone from whom the public had reason to believe they were going to be protected by the original sentence imposed by the learned judge who saw the prisoner?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, at no stage have I sought to show anything other than a very serious concern for all those who may suffer as a result of what at the end of the day is a human judgment made by a series of people about somebody else. The numbers that I gave indicate that only on a few occasions does this arise, and it always causes concern when it does. Otherwise, I cannot end up as a posting box between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Gas Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons) Bill will be taken.

Public Trustee and Administration of Funds Bill [H.L.]
3.46 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Primarily this is an extremely technical measure. It relates to the organisation of the administrative work involved in the management within the Lord Chancellor's Department of privately owned assets such as trusts, funds paid into court, and the assets and affairs of mental patients. Although it is technical the Bill will enable the administration of the assets I have described to be carried out more efficiently and effectively. At present such assets are managed and investment decisions made in different places and in different ways. The Public Trustee, as his name implies, deals with trusts, the Court of Protection manages the funds of mental patients, the accountant general, who is presently the official head of the Lord Chancellor's Department, manages funds in court and the Official Solicitor manages some judicial trusts.
In 1982 a review of the Public Trustee Office concluded that the continuing decline in the popularity of trusts would eventually make it difficult to justify the separate existence of the Public Trustee Office, and that in due course it should be merged with another part of the Lord Chancellor's Department, possibly that of the Official Solicitor. Further examination by the department in 1983 and 1984 led to the conclusion that there was no strong case for a general merger of the offices of Public Trustee and Official Solicitor, whose range of tasks are in general very different—the Public Trustee, in effect, being a trustee, and the Official Solicitor looking after people in contempt of court, young children and so on—but that there would be good grounds for bringing together, as far as possible, all the Lord Chancellor's administrative work on the management of privately owned assets: that is, the Public Trustee Office; the trust section of the Official Solicitor's Department; the administrative (but not the judicial) divisions of the Court of Protection; and the Court Funds Office; that is, the department of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court. The thinking behind that, which I announced to your Lordships' House on 20th May last (nearly one year ago) is that it would allow concentration of expert skills, produce savings of staff and cost and, one hopes, lead to a better service for the owners of the assets in question.
At the same time as the internal departmental examination, a Cabinet Office Efficiency Unit scrutiny was looking at the specific question of investment activity within the Lord Chancellor's Department in

831
relation to privately-owned assets. That scrutiny made a number of recommendations. One was the proposal that while the judiciary should set investment objectives for individual funds in court (that is, for example, to determine whether capital growth of a high level of income was the requisite in any given particular case) it was more properly a specialised task to decide how those objectives should be met; whether through unit trusts, fixed interest investments or by other means.
The Bill before your Lordships will provide the necessary legislative foundation for those reforms. Accordingly, it contains the following main elements. Clause 1 allows the offices of Accountant General of the Supreme Court and Public Trustee to be held by a single person and enables the post of accountant general to be held by an official other than the permanent head of the Lord Chancellor's Department. That will permit funds in court and trust work to be brought together under the same person and pave the way for rationalisation of practice and procedure.
Your Lordships may remember the strange origin of the office of accountant general. It was established in somewhat unusual circumstances. One of my predecessors was Lord Chancellor in the reign of George I and made a fortune by selling the judicial posts of Masters in Chancery to the highest bidder—not a course that is at present open to me. When some of those masters ran off with funds deposited in court, the whole sorry story emerged and the holder of my office was tried in this House by his peers and ended up in the Tower until a fine of £30,000 had been paid. The result was that the office of accountant general was then established to safeguard the interest of depositors. He has been carrying out his duty successfully for the past 250 years.
Clauses 2 and 3 extend the reform proposed in Clause 1. They enable the Public Trustee to take on tasks on behalf of the Court of Protection, both under the Mental Health Act 1983 in relation to managing the affairs of patients and under other legislation conferring powers on that court. Clauses 1 to 3, taken together, will allow adminstrative work on private assets to be centralised in a single office. Clause 4 embodies the recommendation made by the efficiency unit scrutiny that decisions on investments should be the province of specialised administrators and not the courts. Accordingly, this clause removes the power of the courts to specify investment media to the accountant general, though of course it does not remove their power to set the general investment policy.
Clause 5 rectifies a minor accounting anomaly in the existing legislation relating to funds in court. It permits the national debt commissioners to recover their expenses (currently some £30,000 a year) in providing the accountant general with an investment service for funds in court.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained the policy underlying the Bill before the House. If enacted, over the next two years I hope to proceed to rationalise the administrative work on private assets in a single office, to be called the Public Trust Office, which will have at its head a single official with the title of Public Trustee
832
and Accountant General. I hope that that organisation will be able to take on some of the work currently handled by the official solicitor, although of course the official solicitor will retain his other duties and will himself remain outside the structure proposed.
The Court of Protection will also of course remain a separate entity, comprising only a judicial division. Administrative work on behalf of the court will be handled by the Public Trust Office. In the meantime, I have been moving towards a closer association of the various offices dealing with private assets, and the benefits in terms of shared experience and manpower savings are, I am told, already becoming evident.
I have no doubt that the further changes to which the Bill will pave the way will produce additional benefits; and I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.57 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for guiding us through this highly technical Bill and for disclosing at least one skeleton in the cupboard of Lord Chancellors. I know that three of the noble and learned Lord's predecessors were saints; some, apparently, were not.
This is an important Bill affecting those whose affairs need the protection of the courts in various ways. It is clearly sensible to bring together as far as possible within the Lord Chancellor's Department all the administrative work on the management of privately-owned assets. The proposed creation of the new Public Trustee Office with a single official having the impressive twin title of Accountant General of the Surpreme Court and Public Trustee will be an important step in our public administration. I think that the response to the Bill generally has been one of approval.
I note the cautious provision in Clause 1(1) that:
"The office of Public Trustee and the Office of Accountant General of the Surpreme Court may be held by one person."
What is the reason for that coyness? The burden already placed upon the permanent secretary of the noble and learned Lord's department is, I know, a very heavy one, which has increased greatly with the growth of responsibility for the administration of the courts. Would it be right to suggest that he is a kind of watchdog for the noble and learned Lord? Why the coyness? Perhaps we can be told.
I understand that the proposal in Clause 4 with regard to the review of private assets activity in the Lord Chancellor's Department is the product of recommendations of the Cabinet Office Efficiency Unit. I think it is time that we learned a little more about that unit. What is the extent of its terms of reference? Is it now undertaking a general review of the administration of the courts? Is it a new Beeching that looms on the horizon? Has it, for instance, been responsible for the recent review of the administration of legal aid? Where does its remit begin and where, pray, does its remit end? What is its power within the Cabinet Office? Who are these experts who are to roam

833
far and wide over the field of public administration? It may be that I have missed proper publicity of that development. It is an interesting point. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will lift the veil so that we may be happier that men of total reliability, competence and skill have this great task of improving the efficiency of various aspects of government.
I have little doubt that when we come to the examination of this Bill in Committee light will be thrown on what is at present a remarkably uncommunicative Bill. It is all a series of administration, of legislation by reference. Had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Renton, been here, I am sure we would have had a learned discourse from him upon the obscurity of gobbledygook which is involved in reference—purely by reference—to other statutory provisions unexplained and undescribed. However, that may sound a somewhat ungenerous reaction to what is commonly thought to be a useful improvement. But I hope we may have some answers to one or two of the questions which I have put.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I note the chorus of approval which has greeted my Second Reading speech, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his kind words. He asked me two questions, one which I can answer and one which I do not think I can very well. In reply to the first (which I can answer) I would say that "may" often means "will" in statutes. At the moment the Accountant General cannot be anybody other than the permanent head of the Lord Chancellor's Department. There is a section in some Act which says so. The object of this Bill as regards that is that he shall be joined with the Public Trustee, which would not otherwise be possible unless the permanent head of my department became the Public Trustee, which the noble and learned Lord would consider almost unthinkable. I may be going to receive enlightenment on this.
The second question which I was asked is about the Efficiency Unit scrutiny. This is one of the things which some of us find useful. It is not in my department and so I cannot very greatly enlighten the noble and learned Lord, though if he puts down a detailed Question—I am sure there is no secrecy attached to this—he will find that it is composed entirely of the great and the good. It was established by the Government to be available to Ministers in charge of departments, to apply the rigours of Rayner-type scrutinies in a drive to improve efficiency, with a scrutiny of the administration of legal aid in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
However, so far as this Bill is concerned, I am not sure whether I called them in or whether they asked me to submit to a scrutiny. I have myself long harboured the idea that if we were going to look after other people's money, we had better look after it under one hat and not under four hats. I am sure that this will turn out to be a good thing, and this is what the Bill is really about. It could not have been done without primary legislation, like a good many other desirable objectives. I was very grateful to the Efficiency Unit for the help they gave me in thinking out this wonderful idea which I myself had had for a long time, so that we worked in perfect harmony with one another.
834
An efficiency scrutiny is being carried out by the same body in relation to legal aid, but who am I, who pride myself on the great efficiency of the Lord Chancellor's office, to refuse to have it looked at by someone else to see how marvellous it is? It has excited a certain amount of suspicious interest from other quarters, but I do not know whether the Second Reading of this Bill is really the arena in which I should develop the theme at any great length. I have had 40 or 50 letters from various Members of another place and I have written answers of great length and always more or less in the same terms.
If the noble and learned Lord wants more information, I shall be happy to give it to him. No conclusions have yet been arrived at and so I cannot really tell him what will happen. I expect that it will be found that we are running the scheme fairly well, and that will give me nothing but pleasure, as I am sure it will give the noble and learned Lord, since I am running the department in much the same way as he did.
Lord Willis: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to enlighten me? I have been puzzled twice this week in connection with the two little words "may" and "will". To a simple wordsmith like myself the word "may" means that you have the right to do something, but that you have a choice in the matter. The word "will" means that you will actually do something, that you have no choice.
The noble and learned Lord has said today that sometimes the word "may" is interpreted in law as "will". I heard this earlier this week, on Tuesday, too I am puzzled by it; it may be irrelevant to this particular debate, but I should be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's comment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is in a sense a Committee point, and I must have heard it debated about 20 or 30 times since 1938 when I first entered one or other of these Chambers. The fact is that the word "may" confers a power on somebody. Circumstances may exist, and the noble Lord will note the use of the auxiliary verb in this case in which the person who has the power to do something has a duty to exercise the power, but not in every case.
I agree that in the case of the Accountant General and the Public Trustee the choices are limited. Either the offices are held by one person or they are not. My intention is that the offices should be held by one person, when it is lawful for them to be so held, which is not until the Bill becomes law. But I suppose that some later Lord Chancellor who may be either a saint or, like me, a sinner, may take another view. However, my intention is that they should be held by one person, and the object of the Bill is to give me the power to see that that is done.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gas Bill
4.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to

835
move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [Director General of Gas Supply]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The first amendment before the Committee this afternoon is on the Supplementary List. It is Amendment No. 17, by the Lord Diamond.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 64, line 18, leave out ("numbers and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 17. Perhaps I may explain that although it is on the Supplementary List, this amendment was of course on the previous Marshalled List. It and the following amendment have obviously been left out by a printers' error, because they misjudged the point we had reached when last the Committee considered this Bill.
As the Committee will recollect, we are dealing with the duties of the Director General of Gas Supply. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 states:
"The Director may, with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as he may determine".
The office of director general is very important. We have already all agreed that it is crucial to the protection of the consumer where you have, as you inevitably do under this Bill, a privatised monopoly. Therefore the director has to be strong and effective. That is a common purpose between all Members of the Committee.
What I am suggesting to the Committee is that the director will need such a staff as he finds from experience that he needs in order to carry out his very important responsibilities. It is he who will know from time to time, and not necessarily from the word "go", what he needs in the way of numbers. It is the Treasury which should properly be consulted as to terms and conditions of service, especially as the staff will, certainly as to their pay and as to many other conditions of service, be related to Civil Service standards and procedures. In my view it is right, therefore, that the approval of the Treasury should be sought as to the terms and conditions of service; but it is not the Treasury which knows about the numbers required. It will be the director general who will know what numbers he requires from time to time as his work develops or as he is able to carry it out the more efficiently with a reduced staff.
The director general will know what numbers he will need and it is not an answer to my amendment to say, "Well, this might lead to additional expense falling upon the taxpayer"; because we know that the arrangements which we shall come to in due course, and which are covered in this Bill, provide for those expenses to be recovered in such a way that they do not
836
fall upon the taxpayer at all. They are paid out of public moneys in the first place and then recovered though charges and fees. So what will happen, in effect, is that those costs previously borne by the taxpayer will now be borne by the consumer. What I am suggesting is that it is in the consumers' interests that the director general should have the staff he needs to carry out his duties. I hope the Committee is persuaded that what I propose is sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is a very relevant amendment which has been well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. He is right to be concerned about this matter. So far as I can see there is nothing specific in the Bill about the adequacy of staffing for Ofgas and the Gas Users Council, but the memorandum on the effects of the Bill on public service manpower anticipates that the director general and the Gas Users Council will between them have 80 to 100 staff. That is the anticipation but, frankly, that is absurd and almost insulting to both organisations. I would be obliged and I am sure the Committee would be obliged if the noble Lord opposite can explain just how Ofgas and the Gas Users Council are expected to carry out even the limited functions that they have under the Bill with such a small body of staff.
I well remember the arguments we had in Committee on the Telecommunications Bill. Indeed, we keep coming back to that Bill. That is the example we have to work on, and what a bad example that has proved to be. I well remember the arguments we had in Committee on that Bill about the resources that would be available to the dirctor of Oftel and the number of staff he would be able to employ. Our protests that Oftel would be under-resourced and under-staffed were pooh-poohed and swept aside by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who has now taken himself off to Europe and left behind the problems which others now have to solve. He pooh-poohed everything we had to say.
We were right then, and the recent rise in the staff of Oftel from 84 to a projected figure of 113 and an increase in expenditure to £3 million proves the point that we were making. The fact is that to date Oftel has not been affected in the protection of consumers' interests, and the fact that consumers need looking after under a privatised monopoly is confirmed by the increase in the number of complaints received about the telephone service since privatisation. That it likely to happen when gas is privatised. The number of complaints to Oftel has in fact doubled and those complaints are more difficult to deal with either because of the lack of staff with adequate expertise or because Oftel lacks, or is denied, the information that would enable that body to do its job properly.
British Gas supplies over 16.5 million domestic consumers, 500,000 commercial customers and some 83,000 industrial customers. How on earth can their interests be looked after on £2 million and 80 staff? I think the amendment is worthy of support and if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, decides to press it we shall support him in the Lobby.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I could not help reflecting with some amusement, while the noble Lord, Lord

837
Diamond, was addressing the Committee, on what his reaction would have been had a similar amendment been moved in this Chamber during the years when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I somehow suspect that the noble Lord's attitude would have been quite different.
There really is nothing significant or useful in this amendment. Nobody knows better than does the noble Lord that the Treasury is the department which has the greatest experience in assessing not only the levels of remuneration but the number of staff required in official, semi-official or para-official organisations. It has valuable experience which most people in charge of an organisation would be very happy to use. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seems to assume that the Treasury would simply give a blank refusal to any proposal, however justifiable, in respect of numbers of staff. I simply do not believe that and I do not believe that it is borne out by the experience of the innumerable other bodies in the Government's machine involved with appointing staff.
I have only one other comment. I think it is a fallacy to believe that in an organisation like this there is any great merit or virtue in numbers. It is true that the late Lord Nelson once observed that only numbers can annihilate, but in truth and in fact we have seen so often—I hope I may be allowed to say, without offence, particularly during the administration of noble Lords opposite—how organisations have grown and become overmanned and overlarge with a resulting diminution in efficiency. Therefore I suggest that the Committee would be sensible to leave the provision in the Bill as it is and leave the provision of staff for this organisation in the competent hands of the Treasury, which handles so many other activities for so many other organisations. The director general will presumably be articulate enough to argue his case and he will be doing so with sensible and reasonable people. I suggest that we leave it there.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for highlighting the weaknesses in this amendment and for pointing out that there is nothing to fear so far as concerns staff numbers; indeed, quite the contrary. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, used the Oftel example in support of his case; the suggestion being that the official number selected was quite inadequate and therefore had to be changed. However, that is making my case that the fact that the Treasury has to be consulted need in no way be an inhibiting factor. Indeed, regarding the British Telecommunications Bill and the eventual numbers employed in Oftel, those have doubled since the original estimate of numbers of staff likely to be employed in Oftel was made in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Telecommunications Bill as it was presented to Parliament. I am not for a moment suggesting that the same will happen with Ofgas; but the important message with Ofgas is the same as for Oftel.
It is not the number that was initially estimated that will necessarily become the final complement. The Government's policy is that the numbers actually employed shall be adequate to carry out effectively the
838
functions assigned to them under the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who moved the amendment, made his case effectively, as he has done for other amendments; but I am afraid that I do not find it convincing. Indeed, as we are talking about this subject, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that probably my noble friend had a very good point when he said that had this amendment appeared a few years ago, when the noble Lord was Chief Secretary, he would have taken a very different view.
In government I have suffered at the hands of the Treasury, as have most Ministers in whatever government happens to be in power, because from time to time we all get cut down to size by not obtaining money that we should like to spend or by not being allowed to do something that we should like to do. Quite frankly, in this particular case I think it is no bad thing that the Treasury has to be consulted. Ofgas will be a non-ministerial government department manned by civil servants. Therefore, it is inevitable that the Treasury will be involved. However, it ill certainly be the intention to give the director the appropriate level of staffing in order for him to exercise his regulatory functions properly and adequately. In the light of those comments, I hope that perhaps the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: There is another aspect about this question with which the noble Lord might care to deal. It may well be that in the normal course of events, within the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the Treasury at one time may have regarded itself as the custodian of the national interest and in the national interest it may have made certain decisions about economy, efficiency and so on. But can we now be so sure about this, with the Treasury and the City of London in particular being so close together and meeting on terms of such easy informality (almost of intimacy, or so we understand)? Bearing in mind that the Minister himself has given broad hints to the City that the director general will function with a loose rein and will not intervene unduly in the business of the new, privatised company, might it not be reasonable to suppose that the Treasury itself is no longer interested in strengthening the department of the Director General of Ofgas, but is interested rather in economising to the extent where in fact it can only govern with a light rein?
These are possibilities which, even though the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not say so explicitly, I am quite sure are a consideration that he must have held in the back of his mind. For my own part, I am in no doubt because it was in the front of my own mind—and I say it quite frankly—that it is not in this Government's interest that the Director General of Ofgas should function with the ruthless efficiency with which the noble Lord has informed the House that he undoubtedly will function. It is not in this Government's interest that the department of the Director General of Ofgas should be adequately staffed in order to be really tough in the public interest. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord will be well advised to leave the Treasury out of it and give no power to the Treasury to determine numbers and rely on the good offices of the Treasury, in conjunction

839
with the City of London, to explain as best they possibly can, to the effect that the public interest will not wear any endeavours to weaken the Director General of Ofgas.
Lord Ezra: I should like to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, by saying that clearly in our view there is a conflict of interest here. The Treasury's concern is to save money on behalf of the nation, which is a very worthy concern. However, the other aspect of this matter is that we should have a regulatory body which is adequate for its purpose. These two issues are in conflict.
We are now moving into territory which is totally uncharted and we should not have a Treasury limitation on numbers of staff. So long as the Treasury can exercise its opinion upon the wages, salaries and conditions, that is something that is accepted in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Diamond, but the numbers should surely be determined by the director. At an earlier stage of these debates, we ourselves pressed to have the director replaced with a commission which we thought would have been far more adequate. But if we cannot have that, at least the director should be left free to determine the numbers of staff and the status of staff that he requires to perform his function. We must not have this conflict of interest which has been introduced by the wording of the schedule. Therefore I fully support my noble friend Lord Diamond in his amendment.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I should like to support the very moderate amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Diamond. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, knows, I am by no means convinced that this regulatory authority will be anything like strong enough or have the force or numbers to deal with the problems that arise. I cannot see that accepting the suggestion put forward by my noble friend that we merely leave out the word "numbers" will do any harm to the Bill. He has left in the words, "with the approval of the Treasury".
It may be that on future points there will be an opportunity to develop this particular theme; but I am by no means convinced that either the Government or the City desire a really strong regulator. It seems to me that every small item which can detract from the powers that he can use to make him a strong regulator will be used. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said because if the director has to have the approval of the Treasury for those whom he shall appoint, I cannot see any reason why the word "numbers" should not be deleted.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and to what the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Ezra, have contributed to this short debate; but I really do not think that they have been able to overcome experience. It is quite clear that the proof is here with Oftel. The numbers in Oftel have doubled since they were originally envisaged, without any inhibition by the Treasury. The Treasury obviously take a realistic view. We have made it absolutely clear, and indeed
840
paragraph 4—which is the paragraph that we are debating—makes it absolutely clear that it will be for the director to appoint staff with the approval of the Treasury. Therefore it is not possible to give a definitive view at this stage on the number of staff which will be needed. That will only be determined by the director in due course.
I really cannot see that there should be such strong objection to the role which we envisage for the Treasury in this matter as is being suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was in a particularly suspicious mood, but then he is a chartered accountant and I think that it is part of their training for them always to tend to be suspicious. Chartered accountants that I have come across in business have always had that trait. But I think that his suspicions have been unnecessarily extended this afternoon.
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may be prepared to withdraw the amendment, but if he wishes to press it, I must ask my noble friends to oppose it.
Lord Diamond: I shall certainly pursue the amendment and rest my case on what the noble Lord the Minister has just said. He said that the number of staff can be determined only by the director in due course. That is exactly the view that we take: the number can be determined only by the director. He is the person who knows and who, if the Bill remains in its present form, will make recommendations which the Treasury may turn down and will turn down if the pressure on public expenditure remains as great as it is at the moment, when hospitals, education and everything else one can think of are suffering.
I am not here to hold a brief for the Treasury. I am here to speak from my experience as a Chief Secretary to the Treasury which is longer than that of anybody before or since. Drawing on that experience I suggest to the Committee that if we want a strong director and strong protection against the privatised monopoly, there must be an adequate staff.
Every attempt that we have made so far to strengthen the director has been totally rebuffed, as has every attempt that we have made to protect the consumer. Here is an opportunity to protect the consumer in this privatised monopoly which would cost the taxpayer nothing. We accept that we have to have a privatised monopoly; your Lordships have given the Bill a Second Reading. But we do not accept that no steps should be taken to protect individuals against the excesses which always follow the creation of a private monopoly.
Therefore I am bound to pursue this amendment, especially as the noble Lord says that there is nothing to fear; the staff will be doubled. What on earth is the point of having a provision that the Treasury has to be consulted as to numbers when we know that that will in no sense be effective? Both the noble Lord and I agree that the person to be considered is the director. Let him make the responsible decision as to what staff he needs to carry out his duties under the Bill; let the Treasury make the decision as to what the pay and other conditions should be. That is the only way in which we shall start to move to a minimal extent towards protecting the consumer.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ampthill, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Bernstein, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Oram, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Parry, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Dowding, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Shackleton, L.

Falkender, B.

Shepherd, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Galpern, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ilchester, E.

Walston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kagan, L.

Willis, L.

Kennet, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ailsa, M.

Cathcart, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Alport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Annan, L.

Cox, B.

Auckland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Croft, L.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Bessborough, E.

De Freyne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Braye, B.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elton, L.

Caccia, L.

Ferrier, L.

Caithness, E.

Fortescue, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gainford, L.

842

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Norrie, L.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Pender, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Portland, D.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hood, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Ironside, L.

Romney, E.

Killearn, L.

Rugby, L.

Kimball, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

St. Davids, V.

Lawrence, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Long, V.

Sandford, L.

Lothian, M.

Sandys, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Luke, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Mar, C.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vickers, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mottistone, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.41 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 18, 18A, 18B and 18C not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Gas Consumers' Council]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("chairman") to end of line 20 and insert—
("appointed by the Secretary of State, and not more than thirty other members made up of—

(a) the chairmen for the time being of the Regional Gas Consumers' Councils or, if one of those chairmen is appointed chairman of the Gas Consumers' Council, the remainder of them; and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint after consultation with such bodies as he thinks fit.")

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I hope that the Committee will think it convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 21 and 29. As the Committee will note, Amendment No. 19 sets up a different system of appointing the National Gas Consumers Council by including the chairmen for the time being of the regional gas consumers councils together with such other persons as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint after consultation with such bodies as he thinks fit. Amendment No. 21 leaves out subsection (3) that would become redundant, while Amendment No. 29 sets up the regional consumer councils.
It is clear from the Marshalled List that lack of proper arrangements in the Bill for regional and local consumer representation is causing concern on all

843
sides of the Committee. While my amendments come first, they are among many dealing with this issue. There are other amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, from the Alliance Benches, by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, could indeed be complementary to my own, and we shall support it.
Before proceeding further I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to an advertisement in the Guardian of 23rd April in which the Gas Consumer Council advertises for 11 regional managers. The advertisment, headed "Key Management Appointments", goes on to say:
"Under the Gas Bill now before Parliament the existing National Gas Consumers Council is to be disbanded and the Gas Consumers Council will become the statutory body representing consumers interests, taking up unresolved problems and complaints".
The advertisement is for 11 posts of regional manager at salaries on a scale of £10,980 to £13,801. These regional managers are to be appointed by July. I must confess that I am rather puzzled by this. The first question that I have to ask the noble Lord is: what is the position if the Bill has not received Royal Assent by then? What happens to the appointments that have been made should the Bill not have received Royal Assent by July?
Secondly, does this mean that Miss Sheila Black, or the Government, or both, have taken it for granted that the House of Lords will simply rubber stamp the arrangements in the Bill and will make no amendments? If so, does it not show a contempt for your Lordships' House and parliamentary procedure? I hope sincerely that this is not the case. I shall await, as I think the Committee will await, the noble Lord's response with the greatest interest.
In this connection the noble Lord will perhaps also explain why the Gas Consumers Council has decided to merge the North Thames and the South-East offices at a single new office housed in London. This means that the South-East region of British Gas—a very large region with a hell of a lot of consumers—will be the only region without a gas consumers council office in its area. The South-East region has the largest number of consumers outside London. It seems ludicrous and unfair that it should be the only region without a consumer office. I hope sincerely that the noble Lord will be able to comment on that matter. Consumers in the South-East will be most interested to learn that the region is to be merged with the North Thames region and that it will not have an office of its own accessible to them.
My amendment seeks to retain the regional structure basically as it is. There is great merit in doing so, especially bearing in mind the added need for consumer protection when a public monopoly is transformed into a private one. Since the major objective of a privatised monopoly will be to maximise profits for the shareholders and as the constraint of parliamentary accountability will be removed, it is of great importance that consumers have a stronger, not a weaker, voice. In my view the removal of the regional tiers and with them the important local committees on which many people serve will weaken
844
considerably the position of consumers vis-à-vis British Gas plc.
As the Committee will know, regional gas consumers councils have existed since 1948. There are 12 at present. Working with them and appointed by them are 63 local committees. Appointments to regional councils are made by the Secretary of State, following consultation, from among serving members of local authorities and from commerce and industry, labour and the general interests of gas consumers. Although the chairmen of regional gas consumers councils are paid a modest salary, all members serve on a purely voluntary basis. I had thought that the voluntary principle, where people are prepared to give their services for the benefit of their fellow men and women without any payment, was something that the Government have sought to achieve. That voluntary principle has served the consumer well over a period of time. The functions of councils include tariffs, supply of gas or gas fittings, installation, provision of services and facilities, and any other matters affecting the interests of gas consumers generally or a particular class of consumer. Clearly, if these admendments are carried, we shall at a later stage provide for functions within the context of the Bill.
The regional councils deal with many thousands of significant complaints every year and many thousands more inquiries. For example, the northern region dealt with 12,000 inquiries alone last year. The kind of matters with which they deal, apart from tariffs, include services for the elderly and disabled, who need these services—particularly in winters such as we have just experienced, with the problem of hypothermia—the sale of dangerous appliances by unscrupulous dealers, danger in the home, problems concerning gas bills, cut-offs, and a wide range of other problems affecting consumers.
The Government may argue that the regional arrangements are not compatible with a privatised gas industry, but I would remind the Committee again that the gas industry will remain a monopoly. That will be the case for very many years, and the consumer needs additional protection.
In its document issued as recently as 1982, entitled the Nationalised Industry Consumer Councils, A Strategy for Reform, the Department of Trade emphasised the need to maintain close contact with consumers at grass roots and singled out for action,
"liaison and co-ordination between the national, regional, and local tiers of the nationalised industries consumer council system".
That is what the Department of Trade said in 1982. But here we are in 1986 by this Bill smashing to little pieces the well tried and tested system.
The noble Lord opposite may very well say that in its evidence to the Select Committee on Energy the present National Gas Consumers Council argued against the continuation of a regional and local structure and proposed what it termed as a streamlined structure instead. How far that really represented the considered view of the National Gas Consumers Council rather than an informed guess as to what the Government would propose in their Bill we shall probably never know. What is absolutely certain is that that view did not win universal acclaim from the regional councils. At least one of those

845
regional councils (the south western) carried a resolution—it must have been very difficult to carry a resolution against its own national council—dissociating itself from the views of the National Gas Consumers Council. The resolution said:
"The South Western Gas Consumers' Council wish to dissociate themselves from the personal views expressed by Miss Sheila Black, Chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council at the Select Committee on Energy on 27th November 1985 as they do not represent the interests of gas users in the South West Region".
One could not get any greater condemnation than that. Those were the feelings of the south west region, and probably other regions felt exactly the same way.
On the Opposition Benches, we believe that the Government are wrong in their proposals for consumer representation for two main reasons. First, they wish to keep British Gas on the lightest rein unencumbered by consumer power. Secondly, they wish once again to save money at the expense of the consumer. The present consumer councils cost £1·75 million a year. But apparently, as we have discussed earlier, the plan now is to finance both Ofgas and the National Gas Consumers Council to the extent of only £2 million a year. That is the only figure we have heard, and the only one at the present time that we can believe. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that. I hope that he will; and we shall listen carefully to him.
Clearly the amount of money available to the National Gas Consumers Council is to be slashed considerably if it is to be only £2 million for both Ofgas and the NGCC. Indeed, both Ofgas and NGCC will have only two-thirds of the money (£3 million per annum) that Oftel will receive this year. We believe therefore that our amendment is right for the consumer and the nation. We shall certainly listen to all the arguments on this amendment and subsequent amendments. What is absolutely certain—and I think that the Committee will be behind me here—is that the Government have not got consumer protection right. We shall all be listening very intently to the Minister's reply to this amendment. We shall all hope—indeed we shall expect—to hear either that he accepts it or that he intends to take the whole matter on board and himself produce an amendment that will be acceptable to the Committee, will assuage the fears of the Committee, and meet their undoubted wish for strengthened consumer representation arrangements. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
Lord Ezra: It is surely paradoxical that while the gas industry was under public ownership there was an organisation to safeguard consumers' interests which had a national and a regional presence. Yet during that period in addition the public had the safeguard of parliamentary supervision and government supervision. Now that both Parliament and government will be removed from the scene on the privatisation of the enterprise as it now stands at the very same time it is proposed in this Bill that the consumer organisation be weakened. This is very difficult for us to understand. I fear that as we go
846
through this Bill we have the impression more and more that the Government are determined to put a body in the private sector which will have very little control of the public interest, and yet the reverse should be the case.
We have already adamantly been told by the Government that they have studied the American system and rejected it. However, all we can say is that in the United States when they have had monopoly utilities operating they have been very careful indeed to safeguard the public interest. Even if we do not go as far as they have done, we should go in that direction in some measure.
I fail to see why we cannot maintain the regional organisations for the consumer councils. It will be no answer to this for the Minister to say, as no doubt he will, that it is intended to have an official in each of the regions. There is a world of difference between a consumer writing to an official with his complaint and writing to an independent local authority, to a body which owes nothing more than its allegiance to the consumer, and is not employed or salaried by government. These are people who have served the interests of gas consumers over the years and it is difficult to understand the reasoning which has led to their abolition.
The only conclusion that one can draw—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has drawn attention—is that the reason is a paltry saving of money. As he pointed out, it is apparently intended that the sum approximately expended previously on the consumer organisation should not be stretched to include the organisation of a director. In other words, we are to have two for the cost of one, when, in the opinion of this side of the Committee, the protection for the consumer should be strengthened. It should be doubled rather than halved in financial terms.
I should therefore like to urge very strongly upon Members of the Committee that this series of amendments be considered with very great care because the public outside are concerned about this issue. They want to know where they stand when they have complaints about their bills, about being cut off, and all the other matters that arise concerning gas supply. I think that it is our duty to reassure them, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this proposition.
5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I very much hope that the Minister will have good news for the Committee. However, having read the Minister's remarks during the Second Reading debate, and from conversations that I have had, I suspect that there may not be a great deal dividing us. I am prepared to believe that it is the intention of the Minister and the Government to seek to perpetuate some kind of structure to allow the articulation of the consumer voice. I am strengthened in that view when I look at col. 373 of Hansard of the Second Reading debate on 10th April where the Minister said:
"I should now like to turn to consumer matters in the Bill. The Gas Consumers Council has always been a priority in preparing this legislation.
I believe that the new Gas Consumers Council, which is to be found in this measure, will be able to operate widely in the same way as the existing councils which have carried on such sterling work".

847
I move down a paragraph and—in no way attempting to damage the sense of my argument—the Minister there said:
"I am pleased to be able to tell the House that it is the Government's intention that the present regional structure, with a separate staff office to serve each British Gas region, shall continue in the future."
Whether it is suspicion, unease, or uncertainty, we are concerned at the Minister's belief that the new National Gas Consumers Council will in effect replicate what we already have and what this and other amendments are putting forward. If we believe that this is what we in Parliament want, why not put it in the Bill? Why not lay it down as a duty? This Minister and others never hesitate to lay down duties for a range of matters. We are really saying: why not lay down a duty to protect the consumer?
I know very little about the personalities who are currently likely to be the leaders in this matter. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has a distinguished record of service in many matters, not least this one. I also know the noble Baroness's successor, Naomi McIntosh, the wife of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has served equally well. We are not concerned about the intentions; we are concerned about the realities.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart, said that people outside believe that the voice of the consumer will be weaker in the future than it has been in the past. Goodness gracious! When we move from the public sector to the private sector we ought to pay particular attention to trying to satisfy those matters.
Today a series of events is taking place throughout the country—the elections for local councils. I am absolutely certain that every town clerk and every chief officer is satisfied that he does not need the advice of locally elected people, that he knows what is best. Nevertheless, we believe it is right that there should be elections; that there should be many little people with knowledge of what happens on their patch, in their community. It is not that we distrust officials; it is not that we believe they cannot interpret what is in the Bill. We are saying that throughout the country we want men and women who have some knowledge of local affairs.
In this amendment we want to ensure—not hope for, pray for or believe; we want to lay down as a duty an arrangement for local people to be appointed and to serve. The Minister knows very well that there is a school of thought which believes that these people are irritants, that they are nuisances, that all they do is bring complaints and tell the local officials what is wrong or what can be done to put it right. That is what is called democracy. It is part of our ethos. I very much hope that the Minister will give this very serious consideration.
Not a great deal is being asked of the Minister in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I declare a modest interest because of my long association with the Co-operative movement which boasts a network of contact with 8 or 9 million people. There are people at the centre who, quite frankly are capable of articulating on behalf of those people without having recourse to advice and guidance. Why
848
do we do it? We do it because we want to involve more people in the running of our organisation. We have 8,000 stores and thousands of people who serve on committees.
It is always a moot point as to the degree of impact that people in a locality make. We are asking the Minister not only for a sympathetic answer and an assurance that he believes it will be all right, but we are also asking him to consider very seriously the intention of this amendment. If he does that, he will go a long way towards assuring people like me, who do not have a particular axe to grind and who are not grinding the axe of privatisation or public ownership. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart, said, we are concerned to make sure that ordinary people know that they not only have an office and a competent official, but that they know the men and women involved, who are the great and the good in their local community. I am not talking about people who have national aspirations; I am talking about people who I know and who everyone else knows, who want to serve locally and regionally. I very much hope that the Minister can be helpful.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This is a most important clause and we must spend some time getting to the root of the problem which faces us, which seems to be whether or not we change from the current system. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has spoken of Miss Sheila Black's evidence to the committee in another place on this matter, but I look most closely at the words of those who are actually doing the job at present. Whereas this business of change from the present to something that is different is bound to be a controversial subject, I am bound to say that I am interested in what Miss Black said to that committee on this particular subject. She said that: the existing council felt from its experience of dealing with complaints that the existing statutory system of regional councils was over-rigid and over-structured and did not necessarily achieve the most effective representation of consumers or the most effective protection of their interests.
That is what we are discussing this afternoon. I think we must consider very carefully whether that actually reflects the views of this Committee. Miss Black also said something else which is vital:
"We would like to see accessibility to the consumer very much simplified and publicised."
As I come from one of the regions further away from London, I appreciate only too well the importance of regional knowledge and regional representation. That is why, apart from what is written into the Bill at present, I am attracted by an amendment put down by my noble friend Lady Macleod, and I hope that the Government will look very closely at that in relation to regional representation.
However, if the present National Gas Consumers Council is minded that some change should come, we must seriously consider the views that it expresses to the Committee and weigh those against the experience of what has gone on in the past.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty this evening because the learned Deputy Chairman of the Committee has ruled that my amendment cannot be taken if Amendment

849
No. 19, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is carried. I hasten to say that my amendment is very different indeed.
I was the first national chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council and so perhaps I am very out of date. On the other hand, I feel that change for change's sake is not necessary nor is it in the best interests of consumers. From this Bill it would seem that the National Gas Consumers Council, and those who are helping it throughout the country, will have a wider remit than it has had up to now. That means that it will have to have more staff and it will have to work longer hours than even I had; and mine were three days a week with a great deal of travelling. To represent the consumers adequately, many people will have to be involved whether they are paid or whether, as up to now, the National Gas Consumers Council will rely on the voluntary sector for the help at grassroots level. So far as I am aware, this has worked very well indeed. The gas lady—it is not the gas man who doesn't cometh—or sometimes the gas man who is there is known in the area as somebody who knows about gas. We shall come to that then we discuss Amendment No. 26, which my noble friend Lady Gardner has put down.
One of the reasons I am sorry about the wording of Amendment No. 19 is that I feel that the director or the Secretary of State should have flexibility to appoint, as and when he thinks fit, not more than 30 members. I am sure the maximum would be 30. I think we had about 20, made up of one council chairman for each of the 12 regions plus another eight individual representatives from all kinds of organisations, including some for the disabled. Whether the Government are considering allowing, or as a result of this amendment will allow, the regional gas consumers councils to carry on, I shall not know until my noble friend helps us with his comments.
On Amendment No. 20 I should like to say as briefly as I can that I have put down (and I hope my noble friend will agree to it) that a representative—who would not be a paid official but somebody appointed by the Secretary of State—shall automatically be a member of the Gas Consumers Council. It is the same role as the chairman had before, whether they are called councillors or representatives or perhaps still chairmen. If they are not chairmen of something, they cannot be called chairmen. That is why I have put "representative".
In my experience, which was only for five years though I travelled a great deal, it is vital, for the reasons that other noble Lords have given, for the consumers to be adequately represented on the National Gas Consumers Council from all parts of Great Britain. That includes every region. I had every region and I got to know how very different the problems were in each region. It is no good saying that the South-West has the same problems as the North-East, or Wales the same as the South-East, because they are all so different. I learnt a great deal in that capacity.
I do not know what I do now except plead with my noble friend the Minister to harken to what I have said. Perhaps he will give us an indication in the not too distant future as to whether he is likely to keep the
850
regional consumer councils. If he does not, I hope that he will take note of my plea that a representative of each region should be on the National Gas Consumers Council.
Lord Sandys; I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve has said. She speaks from great experience on this matter. Perhaps it is not too previous in our discussions to refer to Schedule 2. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and some of his noble friends have referred to the problems of the consumer in this regard. Schedule 2, paragraph 4, may assist him. The paragraph states:
"The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act".
That power conferred on the Gas Consumers Council, to which we shall come later, is one which one can say is comprehensive in its scale. We shall rely on my noble friends on the Front Bench to describe precisely what is intended by that, but I feel it confers considerable powers which may allay the fears of those who have spoken about their anxiety that there is a lack of opportunity for those who wish to present their case as consumers.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: In a way, I find myself in the same difficulty as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, with these two amendments. I wish they could have been taken together. I wonder whether I may try to explain to the Minister what I think is the background problem to all this. I have an interest to declare which goes back to 1950, which is a very long time, in another place and against all governments. I think this Government have their attitude completely wrong in so far as consumers are concerned.
In our Second Reading debate I said I thought that on the Gas Bill the Government were bringing privatisation into disrepute. A good many Conservative Members in another place were unhappy for the same reason. I am not being abusive on that; I am simply saying that a great many people and the general public are greatly concerned as to what they see are the problems now arising for the ordinary people, the consumers. We are becoming more and more alarmed when we see what is arising out of British Telecom and what we are afraid may arise out of this.
If I remember correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said when we were discussing this at the last Committee stage that in the Notes on Clauses provided by the Government for the Bill it was stated that the legislation for British Gas was the same as that for British Telecom. I for one am very concerned about what is arising by permission of the legislation for British Telecom.
I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said very succinctly, and I could not improve on it: that we were worried about government and parliamentary control being removed from consumer affairs. The Government should take warning from these matters. The general public and probably people such as myself are not greatly concerned with shares and billions of pounds. We feel that that is beyond most of us. But the public are

851
greatly concerned about increases in telephone charges and about what they fear will happen over gas.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will not need reminding that we tried in this Chamber, during questions on British Gas, to say how worried the people were over the differentiation shown on charges of British Telecom for those who were better off and for those who were not. Equally, I think the noble Lord will not require reminding that in today's issue of The Times we read that the Office of Telecommunications—that is, Oftel—has written to British Telecom:
"to express 'concern' over reports that BT is about to offer big price discounts to its major business customers in an effort to compete with its rival, Mercury Communications".
In that same statement, it says that there really is doubt as to whether this is not illegal under the terms of British Telecom's Government licence. I think that this is running right through what the Government are doing, and I for one have no faith at all in the care and attention that they are going to give to the ordinary consumer. I think that consumers and pensioners are very useful to the Government at times of election, but I do not think that they are a lot of use at other times.
I do not believe that we are going to have feelings from the grass roots on this matter of the Gas Bill brought up unless we have real communication whether through any particular gas councils or regional councils; for I am quite sure that we shall not get them through the officials. I should like to say very strongly that I think that all of us on this side of the Committee—and I do not think that it is only on this side of the Committee; for I think it is the general public—would like to tell the Government that we are worried, that we do not have faith in what they are going to do with the ordinary consumer over gas matters, as is evidenced by what has happened over British Telecommunications; and we should do all we can by supporting all the amendments to bring greater force to the regional committees and the other committees so that support from the grass roots can really get through to the Government.
Lord Gallacher: Perhaps I should begin with a confession which is that in an otherwise unblemished youth I served for six years on a regional gas consumers' council. I have kept in touch with that region's reports ever since although I no longer live in their area. Thus, I have some idea of the routine of the work and of the value of what they did, as has already been pointed out, in an unpaid, voluntary capacity so far as concerns representation of the consumer in the region for which they were responsible. I share totally in the view that the fact of their being unpaid strengthened their work and strengthened the work of the committee vis-à-vis British Gas as it now is because, above all, we were able to give a totally independent view on the issues which came before us. I think that impartiality and independence are the most essential qualities which will be required of consumer machinery regardless of the form it takes.
But the regional councils as they exist currently for gas in my opinion ensure that there is a wide spectrum of opinion available to British Gas and I should have thought that British Gas plc would equally have welcomed that broad opinion. The existence of the
852
regional bodies is known in the showrooms because over the years much publicity has been given to their existence and notices are on display there. The resource of being able to write to them is also mentioned on the back of the bills which are sent to consumers. I think, too, that the preservation of the regional concept is important after privatisation because I notice that British Gas already appears to be moving in the direction of thinking of itself as a national organisation.
Whereas once upon a time we knew all about Segas and North Thames, and that was the information which appeared in all publicity, you will now find that "British Gas" is the first heading and "South Eastern Gas" or "Segas" appears further down the list in a secondary role. In addition, the cheque which one draws in payment of one's bill is now drawn in favour of "British Gas" whereas formerly it was drawn in favour of a regional undertaking. I should dislike it very much if the private monopoly were to lose its regional character because I think that will make it even more remote from consumers than it is otherwise in danger of being.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, I should have thought that, given her adherence to the view that regional representation at national level is thoroughly desirable, she would have found it possible to support Amendment No. 19 together with the grouped Amendments Nos. 21 and 29; because the fact that the regional bodies are in existence I think will ensure that the representative coming from those regions to the national body has a point of contact and a degree of experience that will be invaluable to him and to the national body on which he serves. That seemed to me to be the thrust of what the noble Baroness had to say and it is inherent in the amendment which is now before the Committee.
I would also point out to the Committee that regional bodies exist for electricity and are to continue in being. Indeed, I was greatly intrigued to see a very bold advertisement in The Times today in which the regional machinery for the electricity industry appears to me to be going to be substantially strengthened. How odd it will be that a public industry has the supervision of Parliament and consumer machinery as well as the overlordship of the Minister; yet a privatised national monopoly is to have a substantial measure of its consumer protection machinery swept away!
We were told at Second Reading that regional officers will be maintained throughout the country and will serve in post there. We welcome that. But a regional officer is not the same as a regional committee. However, their existence is important because, as I see it, such regional officers can in turn service regional committees so that the cost of maintaining regional machinery will not require the establishment of a secretariat and the cost thereof. I think, too, that the regional officer for his part will find the fact that he has a committee depending upon him, relying upon him, sometimes making calls on him, will be invaluable to him in the work in addition to broadening his experience and strengthening his influence as a regional officer vis-à-vis his national employer.

853
Lastly, if I may I would say that we had gentle fun the other day during a Starred Question when the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, pointed out to us that when privatisation takes place and everybody is a shareholder there is a sense of ownership, a sense of possession, of private possession, which cannot exist in the faceless public enterprises that we now have. I put it to him that if a shareholder turns up at the annual general meeting of British Gas plc, whether it is held in Wembley Stadium or at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, and wishes to raise a point with the chairman under "Any Other Business" about the quality of his service or the charges that he gets or matters of that kind, he is going to get pretty short shrift indeed. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that what we are putting forward in this very modest series of proposals is something which will be advantageous not merely to consumers but to British Gas plc itself. I hope that when the Minister replies he will have something encouraging to say to the Committee particularly in view of the discussion that has taken place on these amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister rises, may I say briefly that it seems to me that we must be careful about this. We need to get rid of the thinking of a nationalised industry where everybody felt threatened by government decisions about gas and where it was essential to have a large voluntary organisation doing this work compared with the thinking of a private industry, albeit a monopoly. I know that many people have enjoyed their work for the regional councils enormously. It has been very great fun to do and very interesting and they have worked extremely hard. But from talking to various people whose opinions I respect who have taken part in this organisation, I feel that they think that it is an opportunity to do something more streamlined.
At the same time, it is essential, obviously—and I speak as a Scot—that this new organisation has a Scottish dimension and that the point of view which is peculiarly Scottish about these things should be put when discussing consumer affairs. I speak now because I wanted to support my noble friend Lady Macleod in her amendment. It seems to me that to have a Scottish representative on a national body formerly in statute is the right way. Then, if the organisation finds that it needs other ways than it has through its officials of consulting locally, it will be free, no doubt, to do so. But I do not think that we should land the nation and land the consumer by statute with a voluntary organisation set-up again. All the signs are that that is not the right thing to do. If one were convinced that it was absolutely essential one would have to do it, but I am not convinced from my information. I think something along the lines that my noble friend is suggesting in the next amendment is infinitely preferable.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: This has been an interesting debate. We have had a speech from the first chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council, my noble friend Lady Macleod, who intervened because indeed it would not be possible for her Amendment No. 20, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has also
854
attached his name, to be moved if this amendment were to be agreed to.
We had an interesting speech both to open the debate and to close it from the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, spoke from a certain amount of experience some years ago. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not generally disagree with him but I could not entirely go along with him when he said that the accountability of a privately-owned company was not as great as it should be. All I can say is that any privately-owned company which does not look to both its shareholders and its customers is playing with fire.
One of the things I am glad to be able to say to the noble Lord who asked me what was to happen to the regional structure of British Gas in the future, is that it is quite clear that British Gas is highly sensitive to the kind of considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, put in his speech concerning the importance of the regional structure. I am advised that there is no intention for British Gas to change its present regional structure or alter the present arrangements under which the day-to-day affairs of gas supply are dealt with by local management in the 12 regions of British Gas.
However, this is of course an amendment about the regional structure of the consumers council, not of British Gas. I realise that, and I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution now to try to explain the rationale behind the proposals embodied in the Bill, which Amendment No. 19 and the related amendments would seek to alter. I think it is worth recalling that during the period when the Bill was in preparation the existing National Gas Consumers Council, without any prompting from the Government, carried out a review of its own activities and the effectiveness with which they were carried out under the existing legislation. My noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden referred specifically to the words spoken in evidence to the Select Committee in another place by the chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council. Those words showed that the existing council felt from its experience and its extensive contact with the present regional structure that the existing statutory system of regional councils was over-rigid and over-structured and did not necessarily achieve the most effective representation of gas consumers' views or the most effective protection of their interests.
I am sure that was in no way intended as a criticism by the chairman of those who have devoted so much time to manning the regional councils. That expression of view derives rather, as I understand it, from the reason which was put forward by my noble friend Lady Macleod, who reminded us that no one region is exactly the same as another. It was for that reason that the present chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council felt that the existing system of regional councils could be said to be over-rigid and over-structured; supported, as she was, by her own council in saying that.
It was against the background of that evidence and after consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Energy that the Government came to the conclusion that the representation and protection of consumer interests

855
would be more effective under the more flexible structure that we are proposing. The new structure will be set up, if it is set up—I say that because of course all this is subject to the deliberations of this Committee and those in another place—only after consultation with the regional council offices (which is currently under way) and as a result of the work being undertaken at the moment in the organising committee of the new council, which incidentally already includes five members from the existing regional councils.
I should like to feel, from what I have said, that there really is no difference between the Government and Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of Amendment No. 19 and the related amendments as regards the importance of a grassroots link with consumers in all parts of the country. The aim in our proposals is to produce a body which can provide speedy and effective help.
Perhaps I may just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton—and she will know this so much better than I do, from her enormous experience of the work of consumer councils—that when she devoted a great deal of her speech to suggesting that the help which will be necessary for the consumer under a privatised gas system will need to be greater than it has been in the past, and when she illustrated that by stating what she asserted had happened under British Telecom, I should like to remind her that with privatisation in view (as it is at the moment with this Bill being debated) British Gas felt it right to announce a reduction in standing charges as from 1st May this year. In other words, we are not talking about a situation where an organisation which has been rightly praised as having served the public sector well is in some way now girding itself to put up prices enormously because it is going to enter the private sector. That announcement which British Gas has made shows that is not the case, and in any case we have the price formula in the authorisation which we still have to deal with.
Despite the fact that I feel noble Lords opposite and the Government are quite close on this, the difficulty is that we cannot agree on exactly what the structure of the regions, from the point of view of the consumer councils ought to be. If one looks at Amendment No. 29 one finds the effect of the Opposition amendments would be that some 300 members would have to be appointed to man regional councils. I am taking a mean figure of 25 per council and multiplying that by 12.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in his speech said he felt the Government were ripping things apart so far as London is concerned. I was a little—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The South-East.
Lord Belstead: The South-East; I apologise. I was a little surprised that the noble Lord was not aware of the reasons why the Government decided it would be better to house the staffs dealing with the North Thames and South-Eastern regions in one office. I tried to explain that on Second Reading and I said then that we felt it would be more efficient to house these staffs in one office, together with the headquarters
856
organisation for the council, and that would give a considerable extra benefit of giving those managing the staff valuable direct involvement with the actual handling of complaints.
As I informed noble Lords on that occasion, I understand the intention of the organising committee is that there shall indeed be dedicated staffs in that central office dealing with complaints from customers in the two regions concerned. The details of the staff dispositions to give the most efficient service are properly a matter for those concerned with setting up the council and I believe it is right to leave them to arrange those matters as they think fit.
The noble Lord also suggested that in the matter of consumer councils, the Government were going very much to cut away at the finance. I think it is important, in answering this amendment, that I should say quite simply, as was said in another place, that in essence the financing of the consumer council under the Bill will be demand led. My noble friend Lord Sandys was absolutely right to read out the paragraph which is to be found in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which says this:
"The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act.".
Lord Ezra: May I intervene?
Lord Belstead: May I finish this point? There is nothing in the fears expressed by some noble Lords that the Government's intention is to sell the consumer short.
Lord Ezra: May I ask the noble Lord whether under the paragraph he has cited the National Consumer Council would, if it felt it desirable, be able to appoint regional consumer councils?
Lord Belstead: As the noble Lord knows from looking at the schedules—which I agree we are not talking about now, but I have referred to a schedule so I must answer the noble Lord—there is also the Treasury hand in this. But I have just gone out of my way to make the point—and it has been made in another place so I am saying nothing new—that, in essence, the financing of the consumer councils under this Bill will be demand led. I have repeated the paragraph which my noble friend Lord Sandys read out. Obviously, it means what it says, that the National Consumer Council could make the best dispositions that it wished.
Members of the Committee will ask, following on what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said in his intervention: What does this add up to? Do the Government feel that a regional structure ought to be put into the Bill? With great respect to the persuasive speeches which have been made—not least by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and others—we do not, for the reasons that I have attempted to deploy, feel that a regional structure is right to be put into the Bill. We really feel that, in the light of the evidence which was given to the Select Committee, we would be returning to something which the existing National Gas Consumers Council felt was over-rigid and over-structured.

857
But I very much hope that we are not going to head in a few minutes towards a vote which might ram Amendment No. 19 into the Bill, because if we did that it would make it impossible to call Amendment No. 20; and I shall not conceal from the Committee that the Government are very attracted to Amendment No. 20, which is in the names of my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
There is a problem about Amendment No. 20 so far as drafting is concerned, and if I have not kept the Committee too long, I think in order to be perfectly straight I must just add this. That amendment refers to appointed representatives of the regions. I am sure that my noble friend has in mind the regions of British Gas; but, quite properly, Amendment No. 20 does not refer to British Gas by name, because this would not be admissible in Part I of the Bill, which deals with the authorisation of suppliers in general.
My noble friend may also be thinking, in putting down her Amendment No. 20, of the possibility that other public gas suppliers may be authorised and that the structure of the membership of the council may need to reflect this. But while avoiding such problems, Amendment No. 20 does not clearly state which regions of Great Britain should be represented. Somehow we shall have to sort that out, if we are to go down the road which Amendment No. 20 is asking us to go down.
I therefore say this. In resisting Amendment No. 19 and the related amendments—and I am afraid that I must, for the reasons I have given—when we come to Amendment No. 20, if we do, I should like to offer to take the subject away and consider, within the constraints that I have just set out, how the Government might be able to achieve the purpose of Amendment No. 20, and indeed very nearly the purpose which is down in Amendment No. 22 as well, which is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I will, and can, go so far as that. I am afraid that I cannot accept Amendment No. 19.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: I found the Minister's reply encouraging in one respect, but unsatisfactory in many others. I must delay the Committee for a moment or two to give some of the evidence which has reached me and which, apparently, has not reached some noble Lords on the other side.
I was not impressed by the ambivalence of the noble Lord the Minister in dealing with the arguments. At one point he said: you have the price formula to protect the consumer, you have what has been announced about standing charges to show the goodwill of the future monopoly, so why—this is the conclusion one draws from those two comments—do you need to strengthen the position of the consumer? He then went on to tell us that there is no need to have the arrangements that we want for improving the situation of the consumer because the present arrangements in the Bill are adequate and more efficient.
You cannot have it both ways. We are satisfied that the natural increase of pressure in favour of the shareholder as opposed to the consumer, which is the
858
dilemma to which the Minister himself referred, will mean that the consumer has to be more protected, not less, than at the moment if that pressure is to be resisted and if the consumer is to enjoy broadly the same charges and services as he enjoys at the moment.
We have heard a great deal about the evidence of the chairman of a central committee about the views of the regional committees. Experienced parliamentarians as we all are, we are very familiar indeed with this. Of course, that is what the central committee thinks, but it is not what the regional committees think. We have letters from regional committee members saying: "We hope that you are going to continue with the regions. We hope that you are going to continue with the voluntary workers", for the very good and moving reasons about which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, told us.
I shall bother the Committee with only one letter, because it seems to me to encapsulate all that is being said. This is a letter from the chairman of the Southern Electricity Consultative Council, which is an existing council. The chairman wrote a long two-page letter, the main point of which is that her council,
"is very disturbed to see that the new Gas Bill, whilst still paving lip service to some regional presence for the Gas Consumer Council, makes no provision for any voluntary participation at that level. It appears that the Gas Consultative Council will simply be a central Board and its regional officers will be manned only by professional staff."
The next paragraph reads:
"The problems for local gas customers, however, will remain the same—account muddles, threatened disconnections, safety queries. Committed members of the community available out of office hours clearly independent and unpaid, able to visit people at home as well as take local telephone calls are the cheapest and often most effective way of solving problems quickly, as well as being able to reflect back to the centre trends which need national action."
That is appealing to those of us who are willing to do so to support any arrangement which will strengthen the consumer representation in the way of continuing the voluntary element in the local areas. That is evidence directly in support of what these amendments are saying; and I have attempted to explain why it is not surprising that there is a certain dichotomy between the views of the chairman of a central committee and the local committees. This is to be repeated time and time again.
So although we are very grateful for what the Minister has said about looking sympathetically on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, we cannot help but hide our dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government are continuing to resist every attempt on our part to improve the position of the consumer throughout the country.
It is not my amendment and it is not therefore for me to say what is to be done about it. I imagine that there is a good deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord the Minister said about allowing the amendment of the noble Baroness to be called, but that is for others to decide.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall not keep the Committee very long. I have listened very intently to the arguments. Indeed, I listened particularly intently to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I was pleased to note that there was certainly some movement on his part, though I shall seek to shoe that

859
that movement has not gone far enough to satisfy me and my colleagues.
I listened very closely indeed to the arguments. All of us listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. We have to listen to her because she has had experience. She knows about the Gas Consultative Council and she knows about regional councils. Although I understand exactly her difficulty that she had another amendment down, nevertheless when she spoke there was undoubtedly a great note of regret that the regional council arrangements would pass away. She had found them most useful bodies in her experience, and that is an experience to which we have to listen. I recognise the difficulty of the noble Baroness but I hope that she will come along with us. Here we have a tried and tested system that we all know, that we have all used and that we have all worked with. It is dangerous, particularly as we are converting a public monopoly into a private one, to reduce the arrangements that are available.
I come now to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but some of his arguments simply do not hold water. He says that the National Gas Consumers Council undertook a review of its own organisation and came to the conclusion that the present structure was over-rigid. By getting rid of all the regional bodies and having only one body how can you make it less rigid? I should have thought that the reverse would be the case.
If you have this one quango—call it what you want—it is bound to be more rigid because it operates from one place—London. It is bound to be more rigid than 12 regional councils, each having people with experience in those areas and being devoted to the well being of their fellow people. We cannot accept the argument that a single organisation will be less rigid than a manifold organisation. It simply is not on and it is against all our experience. Indeed, there will be more power to the centre and there will be none to the regions. There will be no real power.
The noble Lord's other argument was that 300 people would be involved in these regional councils. That is one representative to 570,000 people. That is not over-representation. The fact of having 300 people to serve 17½ million consumers throughout the whole of the United Kingdom is not, I should have thought, a dreadful matter. I should have thought that we were getting very good value for money. The noble Lord must not be too horrified about having this number of people involved in looking after consumers' interests. Indeed, when we come to voluntary work we want more people involved, and more people involved in areas which they know, of which they have experience and where they know the people and have experience of them and their needs. That is what the whole argument is about. That is what regionalisation is about. That is why we want to decentralise away from London and let the people at the sharp end have a say in what is going on and about their problems.
I wish to make one other point about financing. The noble Lord the Minister said that that was demand led. We have some accountants in this, Committee. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is an account
860
ant, as is the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I do not know what they mean by demand led but I have always taken it to mean—and I was at one time chairman of a finance committee of a local authority—open-ended. If I am wrong noble Lords will correct me—and I hope they will get up and do so—but from my experience demand led is open-ended. Can we take it that there is an open-ended commitment now that whatever the Gas Users Council demands by way of money it will get? I am sure that Miss Sheila Black and her committee will be delighted with this debate and with the assurance that the Minister has given.
I should be ungrateful if I did not thank the noble Lord for the concession that he is offering. He has gone a little way and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that; but for all the reasons that have been put forward in this debate, and if I may say so the arguments were on my side—
Lord Diamond: Having regard to the fact that the Minister has already said that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness is not acceptable in its present form, will the noble Lord accept from me that that amendment will not be moved, that therefore if the noble Lord chooses to divide on this amendment he will not prejudice in the slightest what the Minister has said, and that we should be happy to support him?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is very helpful and I thank the noble Lord. What he says is absolutely right. Therefore, for all the reasons I have given we feel bound to press our amendment because we believe that this is the best way to proceed on behalf of the consumers.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Amherst, E.

Hayter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Attlee, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jacques, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Diamond, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Mulley, L.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grimond, L.

Hanworth, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

861

Rea, L.

Stedman, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Rochester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

Walston, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Willis, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Simon, V.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stallard, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Braye, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mersey, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Molson, L.

Caccia, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Newall, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Croft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Davidson, V.

Portland, D.

De La Warr, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Romney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Rugby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandys, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Somers, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teynham, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Vickers, B.

Hemphill, L.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hood, V.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Kimball, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 18, after ("chairman") insert (", an appointed representative of each region,").
The noble Baroness said: I should like briefly to thank my noble friend the Minister for his help with my particular amendment. As I drafted the
862
amendment myself, I can well understand that it is by no means perfect and needs considerable alteration. However, if the Minister will be kind enough to take the amendment away and help me with redrafting it, and then perhaps bring it back again at Report stage, then I shall be enormously grateful and happy. My idea was that the regions should be coterminot6, with the gas regions, but perhaps I did not make that point completely clear. Having said that, I should like to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Lord Belstead: The constraints to which I referred when we were earlier discussing Amendment No. 20 put down by my noble friend and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, really relate to drafting. I must make it absolutely clear that I wish to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 20, but the two main difficulties are that somehow one must define the regions, and all this part of the Bill is about public gas suppliers and not about a single supplier—although, as we all know, it will be British Gas who will be the first public gas supplier. However, there is a drafting problem there.
That problem is at the heart of the difficulty, and in agreeing gladly to trying to meet the amendment of my noble friend and the noble Viscount, there is a quite difficult drafting point to overcome. If my noble friend and the noble Viscount will recognise that there are some drafting constraints, then I should nonetheless like to offer to take this subject away, consider it carefully, go so far as we possibly can to meet it, and return on Report in co-operation with my noble friend and the noble Viscount with an amendment that will appeal to this Chamber.
Viscount Hanworth: I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. I feel sure that he knows what is the spirit of the amendment and that something along its lines will be possible.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve: I thank my noble friend the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 22, leave out ("have regard to the desirability of having") and insert ("choose")
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a very small point, and it is really a question of saying what we mean. I would have thought, quite frankly, that it would be much better and clearer to the Committee if we put in the word "choose". Not, "shall have regard to the desirability of having members" but, "choose members". Surely that is a small amendment which the Minister would accept in the interests of good clear English and ensuring that everybody knows what the Bill is all about. We have far too much sloppy language used in our statutes. Here is an opportunity, albeit a small one—and I agree that this is a small amendment—to strike a blow for good English. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I have already said that the Government will now consider the drafting of this part

863
of the Bill in order to deal with the subject matter of the amendment put down by my noble friend Baroness Macleod and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. It may be that in drafting a change we shall also be able to give a more direct kind of message, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, proposes; and I am very ready to look at it, if the noble Lord and his noble friends will agree that it might be withdrawn on that basis. I cannot give an absolute commitment because there are drafting difficulties which I have attempted twice to explain. I want to be very careful that I do not promise something which cannot actually be carried out.
But I must say I believe we can either get to the position which the noble Lord wants or we can get very close to it, as it is set out in Amendment No. 22. I promise the noble Lord that if he is prepared to withdraw the amendment I shall do my best to accept the spirit of it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Can I press the noble Lord a little further on this? It is agreed, so far as I can see, that the Secretary of State will appoint. There can be no doubt about that. The subsection appears to be quite clear. The Secretary of State appoints; before he appoints, I would imagine, he goes through the normal methods of appointment as I see it, and in my own particular sphere, which is a very limited one and certainly not a public sphere, I have been responsible for making appointments. It is quite true that one sees a number of candidates. One looks at their CVs, takes up the references, hears the views of colleagues to which, unless one is a complete nitwit, one has to have regard. There can be no doubt about that.
In having regard, you pay attention to what you have heard, but you have at least heard it and in exercising the having regard, you may decide that you can ignore it; but you certainly have regard to it. Then ultimately you have to choose.
Now, what are you doing when you are appointing? Before you appoint, you must choose, surely. I appeal to the noble Lord: why should he boggle at the use of the word "choose"? He might, if he does not like the word because it is an Opposition word, perhaps say "select". But why does he not grasp the nettle? Why does he have to take such a simple matter as this away to be considered? After all, I assume that the noble Lord, being a Minister, has to have regard to what his officials have to say, to what his department has to say. But does he finally leave the choice to them? If so, he is not worth the position of a Minister; he is only worth appearing as a caricature in the programme "Yes, Minister".
Cannot the noble Lord of his own volition, on his own authority and with his own intellect—and he is a person of some considerable accomplishment—without looking over the shoulder of his Civil Service, come up and say, "Yes, what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says is quite alright. 'Choose' is the word I mean. I will be decisive for once and independent, I will assert my independence of my own Civil Service and I will do the commonsense thing".
Surely the noble Lord can do that now? He does not have to regurgitate over a series of staff conferences in
864
the next fortnight, and solemnly deliberate everything that has been said. It is plain common sense, he knows it is common sense. Why does he not accept the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is very persuasive in what he says, but he has, I think, fallen into the trap of muddying the waters somewhat. I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I think the English is terrible. But if the words are replaced with the words which the noble Lord has on the Marshalled List, in fact what the Minister will do is to be obliged to choose those who have the particular qualifications. He cannot choose anyone who does not have those qualifications. If the words used in the original drafting are continued with, the Minister may choose people who have those qualifications, but he can choose others who have not. I think Lord Stoddart's amendment considerably curtails who the Minister can choose. For all that, I hope the English can be improved.
Viscount Hanworth: May I simply ask the noble Lord whether in his office there is a copy of Plain Words and a Roget's Thesaurus? If there is not, I suggest they purchase them. If there is, I suggest they read them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I am most grateful for all the diverse advice which I have been given. Indeed, I was delighted to feel that I moved from being a caricature to somebody of some ability in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The difficulty is this. If the noble Lord looks at Amendment No. 22 and at the amendment of my noble friend and Viscount Hanworth (Amendment No. 20) I think the noble Lord will see that my noble friend's and the noble Viscount's Amendment No. 20 is really rather more specific than Amendment No. 22 in the name of the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Although the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have used the word "choose" which sounds very decisive, they have been very relaxed in the way in which they have put the amendment down because the Government are only being asked to agree to choosing, and then the words of the Bill follow after, which are:
"members who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of different regions and areas in Great Britain."
My noble friend Baroness Macleod and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, are asking the Government to go a little further than that. I think it would be best to take both Amendments No. 20 and 22 away, not just in order to tread water, but in order seriously to look to see what we can do to meet the case which is being made in both, because the amendments are slightly different.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think the noble Lord is being accommodating in this, and, if I might say so, today has been a pleasant change from the previous two days; third time lucky, so to speak. But the noble Lord has been accommodating. I understand the difficulty which he has outlined and the tie-up with Amendment No. 20. I think it would be sensible in fact if he were to look at it. He has given that

865
undertaking which I accept and for which I thank him very much. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and with the special requirements and circumstances of the elderly, the disabled and of other disadvantaged groups").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23 will I am sure commend itself to the Committee. It is perhaps unfortunate that we reached it so early in the evening. If it were taken much later, I think the Committee would feel even more sympathetic to it because they might feel they qualified under one of the headings described in this amendment. What we are seeking to do is in making appointments to the National Consumer Council, to have special regard to the circumstances of elderly people, disabled people and other disadvantaged groups.
From my own experience of this type of work I think it is pretty definite that committees benefit from first-hand experience of categories of people who have particular problems, whether they are of a physical or a financial nature. I know it can be said that there are many people who are not within those categories who are well able to speak for them; but in the case of the disabled—and I speak now more with regard to transport users committees—it was certainly a revelation to me to hear people who were confined to wheelchairs telling officials of British Rail what their requirements were regarding mobility and their capacity in wheelchairs to make use of the train services.
Similarly, in this vexed question of cut-offs for non-payment of accounts, or indeed of the pricing policy itself, in many instances the person who is disadvantaged is better able to put his or her case than someone who is not personally disadvantaged but merely sympathetic to those groups. Again, in the case of elderly people and the way gas appliances are designed, accessibility to meters and matters of that kind, it is often better that elderly people make the case themselves directly. In this way I think the Gas Consumer Council will have the benefit of first-hand experience. It is for that reason we have put down the amendment standing in the names of my noble friends. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, together with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Williams and Lord Diamond, whose names are to the amendment, have provided us with the opportunity to discuss the important area of the protection of the less advantaged among British Gas customers.
It should be borne in mind, first, that British Gas is well aware of its obligation to elderly and disabled customers. This has been made clear by the extent of the special services provided in the past and I believe there is no prospect of any reduction in those services in the future. Indeed, British Gas has said that safety and care for the consumer are fundamental to the success of the company. In this spirit British Gas has said that it will continue its free safety checks for the elderly and disabled and will continue the existing
866
disconnection code, which means that the most vulnerable elderly people are not disconnected in winter. It is of course right that British Gas should look after those groups who will be more susceptible to accidents. It is inconceivable that the interests of the elderly and disabled would ever be overlooked.
Nevertheless, for the reasons very clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, this amendment has been tabled and I have to say that if it was not already covered I would be very rapidly accepting the amendment, or something very much like it. Indeed, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin is not handling this amendment. We agreed a few days ago that he would, and then we changed our batting order. I say that because the suggestion was made in a jocular tone by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that it had been rather hard going on the first two days of this Committee stage. As the noble Lord knows, there is nothing that my noble friend Lord Gray likes better than to accept amendments which are well conceived. The trouble was that he did not have any opportunity to do so in the first two days. This amendment would have given him a golden opportunity.
The fact is, however, that the position is covered. I suggest that Members of the Committee refer to paragraph 11 of Schedule 7, which applies Section 14(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to the consumers council. The effect of this is that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended by Schedule 7, will provide that in the appointment of persons to bodies such as the Gas Consumers Council regard shall be had to the desirability of including one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons.
To make this matter crystal clear I shall read out to the Committee Section 14(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act as it will be amended if the Committee agrees to paragraph 11 of Schedule 7 when we reach it. It says:
"In the appointment of persons to be members of any of the following advisory committees or councils, that is to say, the Transport Users' Consultative Committees, the Gas Consumers' Council, the Electricity Consultative Councils, the Post Office Users' Councils and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, regard shall be had to the desirability of the committee or council in question including one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons and to the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons".
I hope that the Committee will perhaps feel that the amendment, which is most certainly well conceived is covered by Schedule 7.
Lord Gallacher: In view of the very satisfactory reply made by the Minister I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and for that purpose shall consult representative bodies and institutions in those regions and areas.").
The noble Lord said: I am bound to feel that the amendment speaks for itself. It needs no explanation. It is a normal process and I hope the Minister will be

867
able to say either that it is already covered in the Bill or that it is a procedure which will undoubtedly take place. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me to confirm that the effect of Amendment No. 24 is covered by what happens. I can give that undertaking. The appropriate machinery already exists within the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry and will continue to operate after privatisation. In practice, when a vacancy arises the existing councils will indicate the nature of their requirements to the Department of Trade and Industry, which will then approach any number of a comprehensive list of organisations who produce a short list of suitable candidates for consideration. Names collected as a consequence of such approaches are kept in a data base for further reference. This data base is updated regularly and the people whose names are on it are approached to determine their continuing interest in the possibility of appointment. The Department of Trade and Industry may also approach bodies such as the Public Appointments Office for possible candidates.
If I may say so, the intention of the amendment, so far as the Bill is concerned, is something which is already done by the Department of Trade and Industry when dealing with the National Gas Consumers Council and its regional councils in its present form. Before the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says, "Well, why not accept the amendment?" I should add that there is a practical difficulty with the amendment. It is drafted to lay a duty to consult so that any body or institution which felt that it was representative but was not consulted would presumably then have a case against my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Government are not able to accept the amendment as drafted because of that particular danger.
Lord Diamond: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. He has outlined what is the practice. He does not like this amendment—and none of us expects our amendments to be perfect—but as that is the practice, both past and continuing, is there any reason why the Minister should not bring forward an amendment which is acceptable to the Government to cover by statute what is to take place?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Perhaps I may follow the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. If one looks carefully at the wording of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, it does not say, "and for that purpose shall consult all representative bodies". If the amendment had included the word "all", then what the noble Lord has said would be quite true, that if any representative body felt that it was being ignored it would have cause for complaint—though I do not know what action it could take against the Minister.
I do not think, in the strict wording of the amendment, that there is any such inhibition. I am bound to ask the noble Lord the straight question: if what is set out in the amendment is already normal
868
practice within the DTI—and as a matter of experience I know that practices within the DTI vary from time to time, from administration to administration, season by season and indeed temperament by temperament, because that is the way that departments work—is there any real harm in including that wording? If the wording expresses what is already being done, surely it must be quite acceptable, particularly in view of the fact that it does not contain the word "all".
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I think that the absolutely straightforward answer to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Diamond, is that what I said about the existing practice of the Department of Trade and Industry is in fact the case, but it does not entirely equate with what the noble Lord is trying to achieve in his amendment. Let me be perfectly straightforward about this. One of the reasons why it does not equate with the amendment is, as I said, because in practice, when a vacancy arises under the present situation, the existing councils will indicate the nature of their requirement. As the Bill is drafted, and as Members of the Committee have agreed by disagreeing to Amendment No. 19, almost certainly there will not be regional councils. So this amendment is trying to ensure that there shall be consultation at large.
That brings me back to the problem that I outlined at the very end of my remarks. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said, I should have thought that there was a danger with this amendment that if an organisation which felt that it was representative had not been consulted, there could then be trouble. I am perfectly ready to look at the amendment, but for that reason I do not think that it is an amendment with which we shall be able to do very much.
Lord Diamond: I understand that argument, and I am grateful to the Minister for his patience in coming back to this. However, I am really asking him if there is any reason why what he says has been the practice and will continue to be the practice should not be incorporated in statute in words that are acceptable to him. If that can be done at a future stage, there is no problem whatever, and perhaps the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to consider that. There may be difficulties. I do not take the view that all of us possess all wisdom when speaking off the top of our heads at any one moment. I certainly do not take that view. I shall be grateful if the Minister will consult his advisers to see whether there is any way of incorporating in the Bill what he says will be the continuing practice, so that it will not rest on the say-so of the Minister but on a section in the statute.
Lord Belstead: I have already said that I shall look at it. I have tried to outline what I think are the problems.
Lord Diamond: I am most grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 24A:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and who represent commerce, industry and labour").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24A. I believe that this is an eminently sensible amendment which in fact should appeal to the Government and to Members in all parts of the Committee. It seeks to ensure that the Gas Consumers' Council has within its ranks people who are conversant with the problems of industry and commerce—and, of course, labour.
It may be argued that in the natural course of events the Secretary of State will appoint people of experience in commerce and industry, and indeed people from both sides of industry, but there is no certainty at all of this within the Bill. That is why we wish to write it into the Bill itself. At the Committee stage in another place the Minister argued that this was merely special pleading for a sector of consumer interest, but I believe that he did not fully recognise that people with special experience and knowledge not only of consumer interest but of business problems, including those of British Gas plc itself, could be of enormous value to the Gas Consumers' Council in the conduct of their affairs. I believe that such experience would be invaluable when deciding about complaints and in running their business.
After all, Members of the Committee sitting opposite believe—quite rightly, in my view—that there is a wealth of talent within the business community, and I think that such talent should in fact be used and used from both sides of industry. Indeed, these days we hear a great deal about the need to have representatives from industry and commerce at all levels involved in the business of the nation.
A noble Lord: Industry, yes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Indeed, that is right, and it is necessary for business people to take an interest in these organisations. In actual fact I wish that more business people would take an interest in local authority work, for example. I think that there are too few such people in local authorities up and down the country. This is an attempt to involve people in the business of the nation, and it is an opportunity for them to be so.
I mentioned local authorities, and if I am not mistaken there is in fact a precedent here in that local authorities are now by law bound to consult industry and commerce before they set a rate. So there is almost if not quite, a precedent for this amendment already in the law relating to local authorities. I therefore hope that, for the reasons I have mentioned, this amendment will find favour. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: In supporting the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I should like to say that, quite apart from the benefit that the council would derive from having representatives of industry, commerce and labour among their members, there could well be instances when some of the problems with which they have to deal will come from the smaller commercial or industrial consumers,, and therefore a knowledge of the way to deal with those problems within the council would also be helpful. In these circumstances I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this very useful amendment.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, called in aid a precedent which he said concerned a requirement on local authorities to consult with industry and commerce before they set a rate. I can only say that if some local authorities which I can think of had consulted industry and commerce before setting the rates which they have set at the moment, I think they would have had some pretty direct answers back from industry and commerce.
Perhaps I can be a little more helpful in my initial reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I think there is one important point that I should try to make before saying a word or two in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and that is that we should not forget that subsection (3) states:
"In appointing members of the Council, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of having members who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of different regions"
That is how the subsection (3) stands at the moment, though I have agreed that we shall look at it.
I think that the Government feel very strongly that that would take into account those who have experience of the special requirements and circumstances so far as concerns business or commerce, or indeed anything else. Nonetheless, I realise that that answer does not satisfy the Committee. The amendment has been put down precisely because Members of the Committee want further to refine the drafting of the Bill.
I emphasise that the Government's intention is not to require members to be appointed only on a geographical basis. As with the current National Gas Consumers Council, we believe that the Bill should permit the appointment of other members who have experience or qualifications which will strengthen the council, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will be making the appointments, will need to take account of a variety of interests, and those of commerce, industry and labour are among them.
Before Members of the Committee ask why I do not accept the amendment, let me say that if we specify rigid categories of interest to be represented, we risk creating a council that could be unbalanced and risk precluding other interests. For instance, what about the industry in which I work and of which other noble Lords have great experience? Why should not agriculture be represented on the council? It is indeed an industry, and those of us who work with and in it constantly refer to it as such. But it is not defined as such in any legislation so far as I know. What about education? Why should not representatives or a representative of education be included on the council?
I am not nit-picking; there is a serious point here. We get into the argument that is often deployed by speakers, particularly on the government side, when they may not be very taken by an amendment: if we become too particular and if we are not careful, we may find that we exclude other interests. There could be that danger here if we accepted the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord asks why not agriculture or education. Do we take it that he is inviting further amendments in order to clarify the position?
Lord Belstead: I never invite amendments; they always come as a pleasant surprise.
Earl Ferrers: May I put one point which I think is of relevance? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, seeks to make smaller the circle of people from whom the Minister can make his choice. If we go back to the words that he did not like:
"shall have regard to the desirability of having members who are familiar with the special requirements",
and add the amendment, it is the equivalent of saying, "and who also represent commerce, industry and labour". That would mean that the Minister could not include among the members those who did not represent commerce, industry and labour. I do not think that that is the objective of the amendment, but it is the effect.
Lord Belstead: Before the noble Lord decides what he will do with the amendment, I must say that I owe an apology to noble Lords opposite for omitting one piece of information to which I do not think any of us has referred. But we can all be forgiven for that because it comes after and not before this part of the Bill. If Members of the Committee will glance at the opposite page, page 3, they will see that in Clause 4 the duties of the Secretary of State and the director are set out. In Clause 4(2)(a) those duties refer specifically to the interests of consumers. The Secretary of State will therefore wish to think about the interests of all consumers. I believe that that is better guidance than referring only to the interests of certain people who should be represented on the council.
Noble Lords have understandably chosen for this amendment commerce, industry and labour, but, as this short debate has shown, there are other interests as well. My noble friend Lord Ferrers also put an important point.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is absolutely right. Our objective is to add to the council people with specific interests. If the Minister says that he will accept the amendment, I am sure that we can brush it up and make it acceptable to the noble Earl and, indeed, perhaps to myself.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the amendment would risk an unbalanced council. I agree. We cannot have an unwieldy national council. I agree that if we appointed to the national council everybody that we wanted to, the membership would probably number about 110. But I have to go back to Amendment No. 19. If the Committee had only agreed with that amendment, we could have had all the experience of industry and commerce. We could have had 300 people from the regions throughout the country to choose from. Unfortunately, that time has passed. I understand the problem of an unwieldy and perhaps too large council.
This was a probing amendment. We have heard what the noble Lord has said and we shall consider it. I hope also that he will read in the Official Report our concerns and see that there are people on the National Gas Consumers Council who will be able to assist
872
consumers and to assist the National Gas Consultative Council in carrying out its duties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 32 and insert ("shall cease to exist upon the expiry of one month after the Council takes office. The Regional Gas Consumers' Council shall cease to exist upon the coming into effect of such arrangements as the Council shall make for dealing with the special requirements and circumstances of different regions and areas in Great Britain.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the final subsection in Clause 2 where it is stated:
"In consequence of the provisions of this section, the National Gas Consumers' Council and the Regional Gas Consumers' Councils shall cease to exist".
The amendment would make it absolutely clear that there was no gap. In fact, the preference is for a slight overlap. In other words, it is proposed that the National Gas Consumers Council,
"shall cease to exist upon the expiry of one month after the Council"—
that is to say, the new council; the Gas Users Council—
"takes office".
There would therefore be one short period of overlap so that the experience of the outgoing body could be handed on to the incoming body without a gap in arrangements.
The amendment then refers to the regional gas consumers councils and says that they,
"shall cease to exist upon the coming into effect of such arrangements as the Council—
that again is the council referred to in the subsection; the new Gas Users Council—
"shall make for dealing with the special requirements and circumstances of different regions and areas in Great Britain".
We have already been told that the choice, the power and the initiative rest with the new council to see that local representation is effective and adequate. When it has done what it has to in order to achieve that it would then be right for the present regional gas consumers councils to cease to exist. It would not be right for them to cease to exist and then have perhaps up to a year's gap in which local consumer difficulties would accumulate, with inadequate machinery to deal with them because the Gas Users Council has to take time to give effect to its local arrangements.
This is a practical issue. There is no party aspect or philosophy behind it, but merely the desire to see that the system works and that there is a convenient and satisfactory takeover. I beg to move
Lord Belstead: I realise that this is a practical matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has explained. In the Bill we are proposing a clear break that we believe will be helpful for all concerned. It is surely more effective to have the new Gas Consumers Council operating from the appointed day in conjunction with the Office of Gas Supply with its staff securely in place. Since we imagine that there will be a considerable cross-over between the staffs of the old and the new councils—I hope very much that many of the old council staff are going to be members of the new council staff—it must be right for there to be a

873
clear break between their old and new jobs, especially since the terms and conditions of the new jobs will differ from the old. Also, I cannot actually see how the gas consumer could benefit from the arrangements being put forward in the noble Lord's amendment. I am perplexed as to what useful purpose the old National Gas Consumers Council would fulfil in the last week or so of its existence.
At the local level it is, of course, our intention that by the time the new council is appointed the local arrangements that will service the regional offices of the new council will be settled so far as possible. This is a subject that we shall discuss when we reach Amendment No. 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner and other noble Lords. All this is being planned at the moment in the organising committee of the new council. It will, in consultation with the existing regional councils, be framing the detailed arrangements to ensure that the gas consumers' voice is heard at local level in all parts of Great Britain. There will, of course, be different needs associated with different parts of the country. The arrangements that will be worked out will, I hope, reflect these differences so as to ensure that the best interests of the consumer are protected.
Once all the regional representatives of the new council have been appointed, I would hope by the middle of the summer—it is necessary to try to plan ahead as the legislation goes through, although I must be careful here because the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I know, felt that we were perhaps treating Parliament with disrespect—they will be able to play an important part in helping to finalise work in their own regions. Until the appointed day the regional members of the new council will have nothing to divert their attention from the work of planing what the local arrangements should be. I believe, therefore, that both parts of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put forward are better met by the arrangements that are going on than would be the case under the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, having heard what I have said, may agree.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We on this side are very sorry that the noble Lord has not seen fit to take up this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. It was once said I believe, by my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, that seven days is a long time in politics. In this Bill we have an appointed day; we have a transfer date; and we have the date upon which the Secretary of State exercises his power for the disposal of shares. These events lie in the future. None of us knows what the future holds. But one thing is for sure: it would not be right, and your Lordships would be entirely in the wrong, if a situation was permitted to arise where there was a gap in the services provided to the consumer. Really, this is all that it is about.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said that there are no party politics involved. Indeed, I have been surprised at the absence of party politics here today. We are all trying to be constructive with one another. Why does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, baulk at the obvious endeavour in the amendment to provide a practical, organisational overlap to ensure complete continuity of consumer safeguards? On a certain date,
874
the appointed day, consumers of gas in the United Kingdom will not all be switching off their gas for a period. Life will go on, one trusts, in exactly the same way. Why, therefore, should there be any gap in the safeguards provided for consumers between the time when the industry is responsible to the nation as a whole and the time when it ceases to be responsible to the nation and becomes responsible to the new plc?
I would remind the noble Lord the Minister that under the provisions of the Bill, even after the transfer date, the Government retain the shares until they are disposed of. The Government cannot, therefore, get away from the responsibility to the nation that they are bent on running away from. They will hold all the shares and British Gas plc will be responsible to them. So, why not accept the amendment? Why try to muddy the situation by bringing in a whole series of considerations irrelevant to the central purpose of what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put forward? I believe that the noble Lord the Minister if only for the sake of progress, let alone anything else, could take this amendment on board without ruffling the feathers of anyone in his own party heirarchy. We support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: One of the great difficulties, if I may say so briefly, presented by the amendment is that there are staff of the old council who, in many cases, I hope, will be members of the staff of the new council. It becomes tricky therefore if one is saying that the old council should go on for an extra year in order to give the new council time to get itself up and running. That is a problem. The second point is that the amendment addresses itself, so far as local representation is concerned, to a difficulty that does not exist. There is going to be time enough for the organising committee to arrange what the best local arrangements should be. This is a matter to which we shall come on Amendment No. 26.
Lord Diamond: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister had to say. He has been helpful in saying that the process of consultation, and giving effect to what is in the Bill, has already started, and that, therefore, there is unlikely to be the kind of gap that I feared. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for accentuating the point about which we are concerned. In his first speech the Minister said that there was unlikely to be a gap of more than two weeks. He indicated a period of about two weeks. We do not see why there should be any gap at all. The whole takeover is based on the old finishing one day and the new starting the next. Accounts are being prepared on that basis. The old accounts are the starting accounts for the new organisation. The philospophy is that there is not to be a gap.
I realise that what we are discussing is related to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and that until we have dealt with that amendment we shall not know precisely how to deal with that now being discussed. I shall not therefore press my amendment. I am, however, saying to the Minister that we shall read his remarks very carefully and that we may well come back, after hearing the rest of the debate, at Report with an amendment to secure what is common sense and not in any way against the views of the

875
Government—that there should be no gap in either the functions fulfilled by the National Gas Consumers Council or whatever arrangements are made to follow upon the present regional gas consumers councils. That presents a very special difficulty in our present position. We shall be able to deal with it more objectively when the Bill has passed through its Committee stage.
With that understanding, and with a view to leaving the matter wide open to return to at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, at what I hope will be a convenient moment to the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that this is probably a suitable moment to break for the adjournment. In moving that the House do now resume, I think it would be best to let noble Lords know that we shall not be coming back to this Bill before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons) Bill
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
As your Lordships may be aware, my interest in matters concerning disabled people started in Yorkshire 50 years ago and was continued in Oxfordshire. Now in London I work with a number of national organisations and individuals connected with and affected by disability. I am therefore grateful to the Member for Reading East for introducing in another place this short but worthwhile Bill. Its object is to reinstate a benefit which had been unintentionally withdrawn from certain disabled members of the community. The oversight occurred at the time of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. Although the numbers affected may not be large, and the sums involved are small, I believe that your Lordships will agree that any financial advantage due to this special category should not be denied to them one moment longer than is necessary.
The Member for Reading East worked closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the drafting of the Bill and they are agreed on the desirability and content of it. The circumstances that led to this arose through a change in the law in 1978. Before that date the rateable value of property occupied by disabled people or by institutions that cater for them, was reduced so that the general rates paid here were correspondingly lowered. Drainage
876
rates payable on property within internal drainage districts, were, and still are, based on rateable values. Prior to 1978, therefore, disabled people enjoyed the same benefit on their drainage rates as I have described.
It was in the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 that the basis on which assistance given to disabled people in respect of rates was altered. Rateable values were no longer reduced for the purposes I have already stated. That method of benefit was abolished. Instead, the current system was introduced whereby local authorities issue rates rebates in respect of disabled people. The new Act did not extend to the internal drainage board, but even if it had done so the existing land drainage legislation does not permit them to offer any rebate on drainage rates. Therefore those disabled people who live in internal drainage districts have been unavoidably deprived of this little benefit.
As a simile, it was as though in 1978 this aspect of rating legislation underwent spring cleaning and in the process lost a small but effective piece of draught excluder. Such accidents are not unknown. Internal drainage districts are established in areas where there are special drainage problems and comprise land which is protected from danger and which derives benefit from drainage work. The areas concerned include those around the Wash, some areas in Suffolk, Norfolk, Kent, Somerset, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. Primarily they comprised agricultural lands, but latterly some have been subject to development.
The districts are managed by internal drainage boards with powers to levy drainage rates under the 1976 Acts to finance drainage operations. The board itself is elected by the drainage ratepayers. As I understand it, although rateable values form the basis of assessment of drainage rates on residential properties, they are adjusted to represent a site value so that drainage rates can be levied on a comparable valuation to agricultural land.
Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act a disabled person living at home receives relief in regard to the special features or facilities needed to cope with his or her disability. As a grateful recipient of such benefit I am reminded, in a lighter vein, of a situation in a game of bridge when a player is awarded points for the insult. In this case it is a rebate on the insult of being disabled. Knowing the cost of expenditure required through disability, I believe that these rebates are fully justified. Payments are on a standard scale. Institutions used wholly by disabled people receive a full rebate on the rates and those used predominantly for this purpose receive rebate on those parts of the building used for these cases.
The purpose of this Bill is of course to correct the omission—to restore the relief from drainage rates left out of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. It applies only to England and Wales as does the Land Drainage Act.
Clause 1 requires rating authorities which have granted a rebate under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 on a hereditament situated in an internal drainage district to give the internal drainage board written notice of that rebate. The written notice would state the gross amount of the general rate and the

877
rebate, the hereditament to which it related, and the period for which the rebate has been granted. On the receipt of that notice, the IDB would grant corresponding relief of any drainage rates chargeable in respect of that hereditament by reducing the drainage rates payable or by repaying any amount overpaid. Rebates for individual ratepayes are likely to be quite small—less than £20 or thereabouts per annum—and for institutions some few hundred pounds.
Clause 2 is self-explanatory. The provisions would come into effect on 1st April 1987, the start of the financial year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Lane-Fox.)
7.8 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having put my name down. I was not sure that I would he able to be here.
I should like to give this small but very important Bill a warm welcome. Many severely physically and mentally disabled people are among those with the least opportunity of raising money by their own efforts because they are unable to work, and therefore any relief that will help them to live a more normal and acceptable life is to be welcomed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am glad that I hesitated long enough for the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to make his very effective intervention. It gives this piece of legislation a warm welcome. From these Benches, we do so too.
May I first apologise for the absence of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who suffered a fall earlier today and was in considerable pain and discomfort. On the advice of his colleagues he has gone home because he needs to rest. He apologises to noble Lords. As my noble friend briefly explained to me, this is more a disabled persons' matter than a drainage matter because we are dealing with the issue of rates. Nevertheless, we are dealing with the impact of this piece of legislation on many disabled people. The intention of the Bill is to apply equity and to put right something which from time to time inadvertently, disadvantages people; but even if the Bill did intend to give an advantage, we would not want to stand in the way of giving it a smooth passage.
As the noble Baroness is aware, the Bill stands or falls not on its merit but on the intentions of the Government, because if the Government are kind to it, it will make very speedy progress. I cannot believe that the intentions of the Bill are not acceptable to the Minister; but no doubt he may have something in his notes which may raise caveats as to timing, suitability, priorities and other matters. If he does not, I shall be delighted and so will many people outside this House.
The noble Baroness kept referring to internal drainage; at times it could have been "infernal" rather than "internal". I am sure that perversity does not enter into this, but very often there is a strict interpretation of the words on the face of an Act. I congratulate the noble Baroness, who is motivated not
878
least because she is in a position whereby this bears upon her own particular circumstance. I imagine that she speaks for thousands of people. I do not believe that she mentioned the number, but not many people will be affected by this measure who are not disabled and even fewer would be affected who are disabled. Even if only dozens or hundreds, and not thousands, are affected, if we can put right something which I understand was omitted from the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, the short time that we take tonight and the time taken in future in this House and in another place will I hope ensure a speedy passage for the Bill. On this side of the House not only shall we not impede it, but we wish it well.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I feel a little in loco parentis this evening, and I am sorry to learn that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is indisposed. I trust that he will recover quickly from his fall.
Fear not! the Government welcome this little Bill which, as my noble friend has said, restores to disabled persons relief from drainage rates which was unintentionally removed by the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. Until then relief from both general rates and the special drainage rates payable in areas covered by internal drainage boards was provided by adjustment of the rateable values of properties occupied by disabled persons.
The 1978 Act—which I was amused to learn went through this House at exactly the same sort of hour as this Bill is likely to go through and was referred to as the Hughes and Hughes Bill—abolished this system in favour of rebates on general rates, but overlooked similar provision for drainage rates. I am bound to say that I am surprised that that was allowed to go unnoticed, especially when I recall that both my noble friend Lord Swinton and his noble kinswoman spoke on the Second Reading of the then Bill.
This Bill rectifies the matter by providing relief on drainage rates in proportion to the rebate on general rates. I can assure my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox that the Government will give any help they can to ensure that the moves which she is making to right an injustice that has been inadvertently imposed on the disabled are included on the statute book in short order.
At this point I think it is right to welcome the initiative of my honourable friend the Member for Reading East in steering this Bill through the intricacies of the Private Member's procedure in another place. I should like to commend my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox for taking up the baton which will give a little help to members of the community who, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen has said, are less able to care for themselves than the rest of us.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister and everyone who has wished this Bill well. I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.15 until 8 p.m.]

Gas Bill
House again in Committee.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Local consumer councils.
—(1) It shall be the duty of the Gas Consumers' Council to appoint in accordance with a scheme under this section individuals to be local representatives of the Council in such localities as are specified in the scheme.
(2) It shall be the duty of such individuals representing the Council—

(a) to be available for receiving on behalf of the Council representations from consumers or prospective consumers of gas in the locality;

(b) to consider and investigate any matter which appears to affect the interests of gas consumers or prospective gas consumers;

(c where action appears to them to be requisite as to any matter referred to in paragraph (b) above to make representations to the Council; and

(d) where action appears to the Council to be requisite as to any functions assigned to it by this part to assist the Council in making representations to achieve that action in any way in which the Council considers appropriate.

(3) A scheme under this section—

(a) shall have regard to the special requirements and circumstances of different regions and areas in Great Britain with, in the first instance, specific arrangements appropriate to each of the marketing regions of the successor company, and shall come into force on being approved by the Secretary of State;

(b) may be varied from time to time by the Council and, if the variation affects the number of local representatives, by the Secretary of State;

(4) The scheme shall be prepared by the Gas Consumers' Council within a period of twelve months beginning with the appointed day.").
The noble Baroness said: I notice that for the purposes of discussion Amendment No. 26 has linked with it Amendments Nos. 26A, 27, 28 and 28A. I make clear that those other amendments are not my amendments, and I shall not be supporting them.
In looking at my Amendment No. 26 I am surprised to see that the names of Lord Diamond and Lord Whaddon have been added to mine. I know that these noble Lords are quite within their rights to add their names, but it is the usual courtesy in your Lordships' House to ask the person who has originally put the amendment down if they have any objection, or if they wish to encourage someone adding his name. So I am surprised that neither of those noble Lords approached me nor gave me any indication that he intended to add his name to my amendment. I am all the more surprised because I sat next to Lord Whaddon at tea last Thursday. He explained to me that he was going to Poland today or yesterday (or perhaps it was last Monday he went to Poland); but we had an occasion to have a conversation, and not a word was mentioned.
I make clear that I have put this amendment down because of my personal experience on the North
880
Thames Gas Consumers' Council, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member for some years. I am delighted to welcome support—
Lord Diamond: As the noble Baroness has been kind enough to give way, and as she has accused me and my colleague of discourtesy, I should say that no discourtesy was intended. I am totally unaware of the practice to which the noble Baroness has referred. Normally it is regarded as a pleasant compliment to one's own amendment if other names are added to it, particularly from the other side of the Committee. I have never heard (I am sorry if it is my fault) of the practice that it is normal to seek the permission of the person in whose name an amendment is before adding one's own name.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, and of course I accept it. Had he approached me and suggested adding his name I would have done my best to discourage him, because there are so many amendments to this Bill under his name that I think it is a disincentive to have the amendment accepted. Unfortunately, throughout the course of this Bill the noble Lord has rather tried our patience in terms of time. Therefore, I do not think his name being added to it particularly helps. I am hoping that his good motives and the support of other Members of the Committee, and the fact that the amendment is good, will be sufficient in itself to persuade the Minister to accept it. I certainly accept that Lord Whaddon would never intend any discourtesy, either, but this is a point I felt I should like to make.
In moving this amendment I had thought it was a fairly simple, straightforward amendment, and a fairly small one. I was hoping that it would come up before dinner because my husband is a candidate in the local elections today and I should like to have popped off to help him rather than be kept waiting here an hour for us to resume.
The reason for the amendment is that the Bill contains no specific arrangements for local representation. The proposed new clause aims to introduce a statutory basis for genuine grassroots representation. I consider that the ad hoc arrangements presently proposed for the new council are not likely to be an effective way of achieving a sound basis for local representation.
The aims of this new clause are, first, to put the responsibiliity on the Secretary of State to appoint local representatives. That is in the first subsection. The second subsection outlines the duties of the individuals appointed. That is highly relevant because I know from the time when I was appointed that one needs to know what the responsibilities and duties are. It also gives authority to those people appointed to deal with individual complaints themselves, but to be responsible to the council. The third subsection sets out the requirement to appoint members for each of the marketing regions of the gas supplier, and ensures that the number of members cannot be altered without the approval of the Secretary of State.
That is Amendment No. 26. I hope the Minister will be able to accept that amendment in its present form. I should not be happy to add any of the other

881
amendments—Amendments Nos. 26A, 27, 28 or 28A—because in each case they take away from the simple, clear structure proposed in Amendment No. 26. Each of those other amendments is restrictive and seems to me to indicate the setting up of a vast new bureaucracy. That is something we wish to avoid. We want to retain the good of the present consumer council arrangement, but we certainly do not want to set up yet another little empire.
It is the genuinely local element of representation that I think is important. If people have a concern or a worry or feel that there is an injustice, they like to be able to know that there is someone within reach of them whom they can see, and that they can contact that person, who will come to see them and look into the problems about which they are concerned or are complaining. That is different from setting up a vast machinery whereby a whole lot of people meet in a room somewhere remote from the consumers. This would be a way of dealing with things on a local level. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment and that the Members of the Committee will support me in it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): Amendment No. 26 is to insert the new clause as set out on the Marshalled List. As an amendment to that, Amendment No. 26A is in the name of Lord Diamond.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 26A.
In subsection (1), after second ("Council") insert ("established")
The noble Lord said: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said and followed her argument. Her amendment would be clearer as well as stronger if the word "established" were to be inserted at the place indicated, so as to show that the local representatives, as they are described here, would, as she has said, be available to local consumers, because they would be established in the locality and therefore have a place, an address and telephone number at which they could be contacted. There is no point in having them there if they cannot be contacted. This amendment was put down partly to suggest to the Committee that the spirit of this amendment would be improved by adding the word "established". Secondly, it was put down to clarify—putting down amendments is a normal method of seeking clarification—the intentions of the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 27 really concerns the same point. I need do more than mention that. I am not moving that at the moment. Amendment No. 28 is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 28A is suggesting that, beginning with the appointed day, there should be a 3-month period instead of a 12-month period (which is a quite separate point) for the preparation by the Gas Consumers Council of the scheme. Twelve months to prepare a scheme! It is not 12 months to prepare and implement a scheme but 12 months merely to prepare it. If it takes 12 months to prepare it and then you have to seek to implement it and find the people, there is bound to be an enormous delay in getting the scheme going.
I thought that the noble Baroness would therefore prefer, in as much as we are only talking about the
882
preparation of a scheme, that the Gas Consumers Council should be invited to prepare its scheme within a period of three months. Surely that gives it ample time to prepare it. Then after that, and after getting whatever improvement is provided in the amendment of the noble Baroness, to get it implemented in the normal way would take a good deal of time too. I hope that with those explanations the Committee will find these amendments an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Although I did not add my name (and neither did any of my colleagues) to the amendment of the noble Baroness, we were in fact sorely tempted. As a matter of fact, at Report stage in the House of Commons the Labour Party moved a new clause in practically identical terms to this. It was new Clause 6. Therefore, as I said when I spoke to Amendment No. 19, I consider this amendment to be complementary (or it would have been complementary) to my Amendment No. 19 et al had that amendment been carried. But it cannot be complementary any longer because it was not carried.
Therefore, we have to consider the matter on its own or at least in conjunction with the concession which was given or indicated by the Minister in relation to Amendment No. 20 by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. What this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that there is local representation, that there are local people to whom the general public can turn if they are in difficulties. There is no great formality about it, so far as I can see, but it establishes this principle that we believe that local representation is good; that local people should be involved; that they will assist the consumers locally and in so doing will also assist the National Gas Consumers Council itself. Therefore, I think it is an amendment which should be supported.
As a matter of fact, I believe that it probably would be improved—I think it would make it rather tighter and more helpful—if the amendment which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were accepted. I think it would improve it, but even if that was not accepted I believe that the amendment would at least go some little way towards what we were seeking to achieve earlier on in Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 29.
We shall certainly support the amendment and I shall be interested to hear, as will all of us, what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to say. He has been in an expansive mood today. He has been quite kind. The atmosphere in the Committee today has been quite different from the atmosphere in the first two days. I am glad of that and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be very glad of it. He will improve the atmosphere very much if he gives a favourable reply in relation to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. That would really make us feel that we are getting somewhere and that the noble Lord was listening very closely to what we were saying.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I too think that on this particular amendment we ought to look very closely at what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is getting at. I come again to the evidence given in the

883
Select Committee in the other place by the chairman of the Gas Consumers Council. Here, I think we are very interested to see that, though perhaps the wording of the amendment is not in line with what Miss Sheila Black said then, she said:
"We would like there to be available some advisers to the local commissioner, commissars"—
I did not like that word—
"or whatever. He should be able to draw on his own advisers. They might have legal experience, accounting experience, special consumer knowledge".
I think that at this stage we ought to ask the noble Lord the Minister to take this back, to have a look at the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment, to realise that in this Chamber at any rate there is a very strong reason for believing that regional interests are important and ought to be recognised. Although we are totally against any structure that is not conducive to the consumer interest per se just because it is a structure, we want to look closely at making sure the consumers are properly catered for. I think that was recognised earlier today. We talked about the possibility of a change in the Gas Consumers Council set-up. I think that this particular area of regional considerations with proper advisers to the regional representative ought to be looked at carefully and perhaps, after further consultation, the Government may think there is some merit in this particular amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: Throughout this Bill, what we are really concerned with is trying to protect the consumer. One has the horrid feeling that this is going to be a very difficult job. Of course, one also realises that, on the other side of the coin, the Government do not want to frighten off anybody who is taking over the gas industry by producing anything which may in the end produce difficulties for them commercially. That, I think, puts the situation fairly. I am sure that the Government really want to protect the consumer but we are not convinced that there are sufficient provisions in this Bill to make sure that that will happen.
I think that this amendment is one of the efforts to put more in the Bill to ensure that this angle of consumer protection will be thought about throughout and cannot easily be avoided. Therefore, I would say that although the Government may not accept this amendment as it stands, once again they ought to consider how much they could put in the Bill with merit and in fact convince us that they are really concerned for the consumer problems.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for tabling this new clause because it undoubtedly has given us an opportunity to have a quite wide-ranging but short debate on the way that the new consumers council will be represented at local level. I can assure my noble friend that we share the same aim. We are committed to the formation of a new Gas Consumers Council in a manner which will enable it to carry out its work in the most practical way possible to ensure full protection of consumers' interests.
884
I would ask the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, to bear in mind that under the Bill as drafted the new Gas Consumers Council will I think I am right in saying, not be excluded from carrying out any of the functions undertaken by the present National Gas Consumers Council. Indeed, with the addition of Clause 33, which is still some way off, the extra functions which are explicitly written on to the face of the Bill for the new Gas Consumers Council so far as appliances and so on are concerned act as an assurance that consumer affairs will be carefully looked after by this Bill.
Coming back to the amendment, certainly we fully accept that there must be some effective local presence in order to take up complaints at the grass roots level and to keep in close touch with the views and needs of consumers. It means that the difference between those who support this amendment and the Government is not a case of whether, but of how. I made clear on behalf of the Government at Second Reading that arrangements are now being made to ensure that there will continue to be a council office in each British Gas region, with slightly different arrangements in London and the South-East area, to which I referred earlier today. I should like to give an assurance that a consumer representative will be appointed from each British Gas region as a member of the full council, to work with the office staff. Indeed, five members have already been designated in addition to the new chairman-designate of the new council, Sheila Black, and they have also formed an organising committee to ensure a smooth change-over to the new council.
One question which I know this committee is examining in detail at the present time is that of local representation. This is a matter on which they propose to consult widely. Different views have been expressed by the existing regional councils and by individuals on what arrangements at local level would be best to ensure that the new body remains closely in touch with local opinion and can deal efficiently with local problems. I understand that these views and those of the organising committee are to be discussed this month by the National Gas Consumers Council, on which the chairmen of all the regional councils sit. I understand the meeting will be entirely devoted to this important subject. It is against the background of this advice that will be coming up from the existing regional councils and the national council that the initial decisions on the structure of local representation, I think, really ought to be made.
This is perhaps where I part company with some of your Lordships, because the Government believe that we really ought to give the responsibility to the new Gas Consumers Council, and particularly to the members appointed from each of the regions to make particular arrangements for effective local communication and to adapt those arrangements to meet changing circumstances in the light of the needs of each particular region. As I have explained, they will be doing that in the light of what the existing national council and its regional councils have to say.
The new council which is to be set up already has duties and functions under this Bill. It is clear that, as consumer representatives, they can carry out their role only if they maintain effective channels of communication with local consumers. My noble

885
friend Lord Sandys, several hours ago now, reminded us that in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 the Bill gives the new council a wide power,
"to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act".
We have therefore given the new council power to go with the responsibility to decide how local representation ought to be worked out. For these reasons the Bill does not seek to spell out a specific local structure.
I should like, if I may, to turn just for a moment to the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Whaddon. I have made it clear that, at this stage at any rate. I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner because we feel that it is the new Gas Consumers Council, in the light of advice coming from the old council and the regional councils, which ought to make up its mind on how best to organise local representation—and of course this amendment would lay down a structure.
These amendments, of course, are attached to Amendment No. 26. I hope I am not being discourteous when I say that if I do not wish to accept, on behalf of the Government, Amendment No. 26, therefore I do not think I ought to go into too much detail over the noble Lords' amendments. But may I say that I would not see any difficulty, if Amendment No. 26 were to be passed, with Amendment No. 26A; that is declaratory, and clear drafting. I do not think I would see much difficulty with Amendment No. 27 either. It is the intention that offices will be established; I have talked about this at some length previously and so I will not weary the Committeee with it again.
As regards Amendment No. 28, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will appreciate from my earlier remarks that I share his view that local representations should be the responsibility of the council and not that of the Secretary of State directly. The noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Whaddon, have also suggested that the Gas Consumers Council should be obliged to complete the preparation of the proposed local scheme within three, rather than 12, months, as proposed by my noble friend. That is the last of the noble Lords' associated amendments.
I should like to assure the Committee that we intend to have the local offices of the new council fully in being from the day the British Gas authorisation comes into force on the appointed day. The establishment of further contracts with volunteers and local organisations and expertise will be a matter for the regional council representatives and the council itself. I am sure they will want to make initial contacts as soon as possible. I think that imposing a three months' deadline might lead to difficulties, but I believe that it is going to be perfectly possible to see that there is no gap in the arrangements; but that is harking back to a previous amendment of the noble Lord's.
Finally, coming back to my noble friend's amendment, I should like to say that all your Lordships have expressed yourselves in favour of it in one way or another, even though my noble friend did not exactly invite your Lordships to attach your names to it. My noble friend Lord Sanderson said in round terms that he thought the Government ought to take
886
the amendment away and look at it. I think that is what I ought to do. When a Government spokesman finds himself in a position where he says, as I did, that it is our view that it is right that local representation should be worked out, the least such a spokesman can do, on behalf of the Government, is to say, as I do, that I should like to take the matter away and read what has been said by your Lordships in this debate.
However, I would ask your Lordships, on your side, even though you may not agree with what the Government are saying on this particular point, to bear in mind that we are genuinely concerned—not on ideological grounds but genuinely concerned—about putting into the Bill a structure which quite soon the new Gas Consumers Council, in the light of advice which it will receive from its predecessors, may feel would not be quite the right judgment to take. We shall all know more in a few weeks' time after the meeting which is taking place this month. I would ask your Lordships to let me take the amendment away and think about it again on Report.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Minister for his response to this amendment. Before accepting his offer to take this away so that it max be further studied by the Government, perhaps I may refer him to Notes on Clauses and in particular to the comment on subsection (3). Perhaps I may quote it verbatim. It refers to Clause 2(3) and says:
"This requirement is designed to reflect the need for a proper account to be taken of the views of gas consumers in different parts of Great Britain".
As I understand the noble Lord there is no dispute between us. All sides of the Committee agree on this particular question.
The Notes on Clauses then go on:
"The requirement follows current practice in relation to the Regional Gas Consumers' Councils and is logical given that complaints arise at local level".
It seems to me that it is logical if that is the case, as the Notes on Clauses say, that the Government should consider whether the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is not the minimal amendment that satisfies the logic in their own Notes on Clauses. I hope that when the noble Lord agrees to take the amendment away and look at it he will do so in the light of the logic of the Notes on Clauses which the Government themselves have provided.
Secondly, may I just refer very briefly to the evidence given by Miss Sheila Black to the Select Committee on Energy? I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is not in his place because I am sure his blood pressure would rise if I were to mention that Miss Sheila Black was a member of the Price Commission, although she was a member of the Price Commission under the aegis of my predecessor as chairman who was, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield.
Miss Sheila Black is a very distinguished authority on consumer affairs; but I really have to press on the Government the argument that I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, used early on: that a chairman or a chairman-designate of a national council is not really very interested in having very strong regional representation—"She would say that, wouldn't she?"

887
However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, was right in drawing attention to the fact that even the chairman-designate of the national council pressed an arrangement along the lines of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. I hope very much that the noble Lord will give us the assurance that, in taking away the amendment and looking at it, he will look at it in a constructive manner, in the logic of the Notes on Clauses and in the constructive manner which I think the chairman-designate of the Gas Consumers' Council would wish.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord has used a device which at one and the same time I find appealing but highly irritating. The noble Lord has of course picked out from evidence which has been given in the Select Committee the part that he likes and agrees with; and the part that he does not like he says he does not agree with and is suspicious of.
Nonetheless, the noble Lord is onto quite a good point in stating that the chairman designate of the new Gas Consumers' Council gave evidence in the sense that there was need to think in a constructive way about local representation, and it is precisely this point which my noble friend Lord Sanderson picked up in asking the Government to look again at the amendment. I shall try to do so constructively.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: We have had an interesting reply from my noble friend the Minister. I cannot quite decide whether I am satisfied with it, because when he started off by saying that it was a case not of whether to have it but of how to have it, I was very pleased. I thought it was only a matter of looking at a few minor words and sorting our something between us. But then when he went on to say that there was no need for the present National Gas Consumers Council to consult widely, I wondered how widely that was and how long it meant.
I was hoping that the meeting to which he referred would take place very soon, so that we could have a more definite decision before we get to the next stage of the Bill. But it seems to me from what he said that he, at least, concedes the principle of this local representation and that the main difference between us is whether the Gas Consumers' Council or the Secretary of State makes these appointments. That seems to me to be one of the essential differences between us.
I am hoping that between now and the next stage we shall be able to persuade my noble friend the Minister that the way it is put in my amendment is desirable. I am willing to accept any tidying up of words or anything which makes the amendment better or more efficient; but the principle of it is something that we must follow. At this stage, I shall happily withdraw the amendment this evening, in the belief—I have great faith in the Minister—that he will do something between now and the next stage. If not, I give him due warning that I shall be back again.
Lord Diamond: I think that the amendment before the Committee at the moment is an amendment to Amendment No. 26; that is to say, Amendment
888
No. 26A which is in my name. Therefore it is appropriate that I should delay the Committee again for a moment or two first to say that we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for putting down the amendment; secondly, to say that we very much appreciate her strong attitude towards it; and, thirdly—and equally importantly—to say that it would be churlish of anybody on this side not to recognise that the Minister has understood very fully what we are driving at, and has made a number of statements (which are wholly in line with what we are seeking) as to the ultimate purpose. When I say "we" I refer to the fact that my noble friend Lord Whaddon and I both have our names to the amendment. Therefore, we very much hope that at the end of the day we shall have a totally satisfactory clause in the Bill covering what is genuinely wanted, both by those who have spoken in the debate and by the new council which is considering the matter at the moment.
I was wondering whether the noble Lord the Minister could use his best offices to try to persuade the council to have its recommendations available by the time we reach the Report stage. It would be a pity if we had to go through the same process at Report stage of not knowing what the Government were going to do and having to leave it over until the following stage of Third Reading. So I very much hope that we shall be in a position to know much more precisely what the Government have said. I am most grateful for the indication that has been given and for the understanding. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 26A.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 26.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Gas Consumers' Council]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 65, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) Any contract of employment with either the National Gas Consumers' Council or a Regional Gas Consumers' Council in force immediately before the transfer date shall become a contract of employment with the Gas Consumers' Council, on the transfer date, upon the same terms and conditions of the said contract of employment. The rights and liabilities of the National Gas Consumers' Council and the Regional Gas Consumers' Council under any agreement or arrangement for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities shall be vested in the Gas Consumers' Council upon the transfer date and accordingly any period of employment with the National Gas Consumers' Council or a Regional Gas Consumers' Council shall count for all purposes as a period of employment with the Council.
(1B) Access to the pension scheme of the public gas supplier will be retained following transfer of undertakings.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief about this amendment which is really asking for information. It has been put down because we are a little concerned about the position of people employed by the present National Gas Consumers Council and the regional councils. We know that there will be considerable

889
upheaval following the passing of this Bill. Large-scale redundancies will occur and conditions of service will be considerably altered. There seem to be no proper arrangements for the transfer of staff from the present consumers organisations to the new Gas Consumers Council, nor for those numbering, I think, about 100 who are to be made redundant. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any knowledge of the exact terms of the severance arrangements? We are entitled to know that and the staff are entitled to know that. Also, I understand that staff transferred will be employed under Civil Service arrangements; but it is not clear to me what this means in terms of alterations to salaries, conditions of service and pension arrangements.
At present there is an exact correlation between conditions of service of employees of British Gas and those of the National Gas Consumers Council and the regional gas consumers councils, but after vesting day all this will change and employees of the National Gas Consumers Council will become civil servants. Can we have the assurance that the transferred employee will be no worse off? What arrangements will there be to safeguard the conditions of existing employees? What discussions are taking place with the relevant trade unions? Are there any outstanding points of disagreement at the moment?
On the question of pensions, can the noble Lord say what is to happen? Will employees have the choice of whether to transfer their existing benefits and rights to the Civil Service scheme, or will these be compulsorily transferred? If existing rights and benefits are to be frozen, under what conditions will they be frozen—at existing salary levels or dynamised to salary as well as cost of living?
I say that advisedly, because I happen to be a member of the parliamentary pensions fund. My pension will be frozen at the level of 1983, when I ceased to be a Member of the House of Commons. All I shall get in enhancement is the cost of living; it will have nothing to do with salary. That will make a considerable difference to the pension which I otherwise would have had, had I been able to remain a Member of another place. That really is important. Is it to be at existing salary levels or dynamised to salary as well as cost of living? I should like to know that.
I should not like the employees of the National Gas Consumers Council or anybody else to be treated in the way that Members of Parliament are treated. I hope that they will be treated much better than that. All those who have served in the House of Commons will agree with me. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, but I hope that the Minister can give me some assurances on these points.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee just one point on this amendment and ask whether the noble Lord the Minister has any clearer guidance for us on this matter. It concerns those who will continue in employment, because as I understand it the whole thing will stop and then start again and people will be taken on. I noticed that it was discussed at great length in another place. The Under-Secretary of State there said that he hoped that those currently employed will have the best possible chance of trying for the new jobs available. I
890
am probing whether that can be taken any further and whether the Minister can give us any further assurances on that particular point.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I recognise the concern that lies behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the importance which noble Lords opposite attach to protecting the interests of those presently working in the gas consumers councils is fully acknowledged by the Government; and clearly, from the intervention of my noble friend Lord Sanderson, he is also concerned with this matter.
The Government are also anxious that the necessary changes arising out of the Bill should as far as possible not impact adversely on those who have given such excellent service in the past. However, I ask noble Lords to acknowledge that there is some scope for rationalisation, improvement and streamlining of the exising structure, the net effect of which will be to offer a more effective service to the consumer, whose interests, after all, these bodies must ultimately reflect.
It is the Government's policy to standardise the terms and conditions of employment of non-departmental public bodies, such as the new consumer council will be, on terms which are analogous to those in the Civil Service. So my first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is that terms and conditons of employment for the future for the new gas consumers council when the Bill becomes law will be on the level of the Civil Service.
As has been made clear in another place, we are taking the opportunity as the occasions arise to pursue this policy, which was begun two years ago with the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the creation of the London Regional Passenger Committee, and to extend the rationalisation to the consumer body for the gas industry. I say this because the tasks which consumer councils perform and the responsibilities with which they are charged are much more akin to those of the Civil Service than the industry over which the consumer bodies have an oversight, whether that industry be in the public sector or in the private sector.
The new consumer council for gas will be a strong new public body for protecting the public interest in this important area. At this point perhaps I may pay tribute to the excellent service which has been given by the staffs of the current councils. It is, I regret, going to be necessary for some staff to be made redundant as the change in terms and conditions of service demands this. It will be open to existing employees to apply for jobs with the new council, and they will of course receive full compensation payments on terms which are analogous to the British Gas redundancy scheme.
My noble friend Lord Sanderson asked whether the arrangements for existing staff would be favourable so far as getting jobs in the new Gas Users Council is concerned. All the existing staff will be or have been informed about new posts, and proper arrangements have been made in this way, without giving a special position to existing staff. I am however glad to be able to say that whereas the forecast for the numbers of staff in the Gas Consumers Council when the Bill was before another place in Committee was about 50, my

891
advice is that there are now likely to be a starting number of about 75 staff in the Gas Consumers Council, and so the opportunities for employment in the new council will be the more. It is clearly a very relevant consideration that staff of the existing councils will be experienced in dealing with gas consumers and their complaints, and that alone will obviously give a current employee who wishes to apply for employment with the new council that slight advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me about pensions. It would not be appropriate for those re-employed by the new council to stay with the British Gas pension fund. The purpose of the change, as I have explained, is for employees of the new council to be employed on terms analogous to those in the Civil Service. This will include their membership of a pensions scheme analogous to that of the Civil Service. Current employees re-employed by the new council will be able to freeze their existing pension within the British Gas scheme and then start afresh with the Civil Service analogous scheme, or transfer across their length of service entitlements to the Civil Service analogous scheme under the public sector transfer arrangements—whichever is more favourable to them. Perhaps I should add—and I add it simply as a matter of fact—that those who are re-employed will be receiving redundancy entitlements as well as in effect their going into jobs in the successor council.
So all is not perhaps as difficult as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, may have felt in putting down his amendment. Nonetheless, there are some difficulties with regard to redundancies, and I have not shirked having to say that that is the case. I hope I have given the Committee as much detail as possible in answer to this amendment.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether "analogous to" is bureaucratese for "the same as", or is he implying that there is in fact some difference?
Lord Belstead: It is supposed to be the same, but one has to look at the small print to see whether it is exactly the same, hence the use of the word "analogous".
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Just for clarification, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether, now that the employees are to be civil servants, the Department of Trade and Industry will be their employers? If not, will it be the Department of Energy, as it was in my time?
Lord Belstead: No, the sponsoring department for the consumers council will be the Department of Trade and Industry, and the relevant Minister is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord for that information. Clearly this is a complicated matter and I shall want to read what the Minister has said. He did not answer this question, but I take it that discussions are continuing with the trade unions about
892
those matters. I hope that they are. No doubt the trade unions will read the Hansard report of our debate as well. I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said.
I have one further point to make. At present the staff of the consumers council are not subject to the Official Secrets Act. Will they become subject to that Act when they become civil servants? If so, how does that square with their role as consumer representatives wanting to inform consumers about matters that might put them outside the Official Secrets Act? The Minister might like to consider that point.
Lord Belstead: I regret to say that I cannot answer that skilful and difficult question, but I shall write to the noble Lord. I did not reply to the question that the noble Lord raised about dynamised pensions, and I am not furnished with an answer. I should like to look into that point. It is important that the noble Lord should have a reply and I shall write to him fairly swiftly on that point as well.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 30B:
Page 65, line 26, at end insert ("other than relating to numbers").
The noble Lord said: The schedule that we are discussing states in paragraph 3(1) that,
"the Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine".
The council, of course, relies very largely on its staff to be able to carry out its duty of protecting the consumer both locally and nationally. It is therefore important that the council should have reasonable freedom to act in a responsible way in appointing such staff as it may determine. However, sub-paragraph (3) states that,
"That consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving by the Secretary of State of an approval for the purposes of subparagraph (1) above",
to which I have just referred. In other words, the consent of the Treasury is required as to both the numbers of staff and the terms and conditions of service.
I accept—and we have discussed this previously—that the terms and conditions of service are an appropriate field in which the consent of the Treasury should be obtained, particularly as these are Civil Service appointments. What I cannot accept is that the Treasury should have the responsibility of deciding because it has to determine and it has a complete power of veto. I cannot accept that the Treasury should be burdened with that power in relation to the size of the staff, the numbers, which the council, which is a responsible body appointed by the Secretary of State, may determine as necessary for its purpose.
I do not need to dilate further on that matter. We have discussed the same point previously. I hope that the noble Lord who has been so understanding of many of the amendments will understand the purpose of this amendment. I hope he will share my view that the council should have a reasonable opportunity of deciding the numbers without having to refer to the

893
third party, which is not in a position to be there at first hand and know as well as the council does. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord asks that the Government recognise that he has a genuine concern that the council should be fully staffed to represent the interests of gas consumers and to deal swiftly and effectively with their complaints. I hope that I am not misrepresenting anything that the noble Lord has said in saying that such is my feeling.
I ask the noble Lord to take on board the Government's concern on behalf of those who pay their bills for gas. We are setting up a system whereby the consumers council will have the cost of running it met by British Gas and other authorised gas suppliers through annual authorisation fees. That means that members of the public using gas, and industry using gas, will be the real payers of the cost of the Gas Consumers Council. I would have thought that for that reason alone it must surely be right to have some check on the expenditure of the council or at least some oversight. That is provided by the mention of the Treasury in Schedule 2.
As has been made very clear in another place, the Government will ensure that the council has sufficient resources in terms of funding and manpower to carry out its functions effectively. If the staff of the council are to have terms and conditions of service as civil servants, I would have thought, if I may add another and rather different point, that the sub-paragraph mentioning the Treasury really does not do much more than add transparency to what are normal procedures within government, of which the noble Lord was aware many years before I ever knew about them. For those reasons I would have thought that the provision for the Treasury in Schedule 2 is not unreasonable. Indeed, I believe it is necessary to have mention of the Treasury if at the end of the day the demands made upon finance by the Gas Consumers Council come down to the payers of the gas bills.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We are much obliged to the noble Lord for his candour in mentioning a point that we shall come to at a later stage. He has brought it up much earlier: the fact that the consumer of gas will under this privatisation Bill have to pay through his gas bills for the privilege of being safeguarded. That is something that has not been made very public so far and I hope that it will be picked up.
If the Minister will refer to Schedule 2, paragraph 3, he will find in sub-paragraph (1) that,
"the Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine".
What on earth is the reason for the Treasury looking over the shoulder of the Secretary of State? It looks very much as though originally the department had a good idea, and then with the interdepartmental committees it obviously went to the Treasury and the Treasury said, "We cannot have paragraph 3(1) on its own; we must have some control over the Secretary of State". Here we are dealing essentially with a policy matter, and also a matter of method that has been dealt with by a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both sides of the Committee.
894
The noble Lord has said that we can rely on the Secretary of State to make the safeguards effective. Indeed, he has brought forward many arguments. At one stage the Minister said that it was going to be demand led (shades of the common agricultural policy in Europe). He pointed out also, in a moment of considerable frankness and affability, when he gave an indication of which way his mind was moving, that in the case of Oftel the numbers had doubled in a very short time. Therefore he gave us hope.
There really is no reason why, if we have a reasonable Secretary of State—and I would assume the Secretary of State is a responsible person for the purposes of this Act anyway—he could not have been entrusted with the task, together with the council, of determining the numbers. I do not think the noble Lord is really reflecting very favourably upon his own Secretary of State, or indeed on the genuineness of his own argument when he implied earlier on that it would be demand-led.
9 p.m.
Lord Diamond: I hesitate always, but particularly in this case, to suggest that perhaps my amendment has not been fully understood. Therefore, as it cannot be that, it must be that the amendment does not mean what I think it means. The amendment was intended to make it absolutely clear that the Treasury retains the right of approval regarding terms and conditions of service which, if I may say so, is not quite what the Minister seemed to be understanding. I hope, I repeat, that the amendment makes that absolutely clear.
What the amendment is pointing to is the adequacy of numbers being decided by the responsible body which knows how many staff it requires. It is as simple as that. It is responsible because the Secretary of State has taken on the duty of seeing that it is responsible. This responsible body comes to the conclusion that it needs X number of staff, and I think that is a sufficient safeguard for the public.
Obviously, the Treasury then are concerned with the terms and conditions of service. So I hope that on the assumption that the noble Lord the Minister has not quite fully taken that on board, and on the assumption that my amendment means what I intended it to mean, the noble Lord the Minister will give it perhaps a little further consideration.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I do not wish to pour cold water on the noble Lord's riposte. But although my reply may have been a little loose and made it seem as though I felt that the amendment was at large instead of referring only to the Treasury control over numbers, there are still the two points: first of all, that it is the consumers of gas who will be paying the costs of the new council, and of course the numbers of staff manning the council will have some effect on the total expenditure. There is that, and there is the point which perhaps I mentioned rather too quickly, but I would have thought that this paragraph gave what I call the normal transparency to procedures within the government, in that all governments' Secretaries of State have to work within the agreements of the government in which they serve for collective responsibility, including collective responsibility for finance. Hence the mention of the Treasury, referred

895
to several times in important legislation when the noble Lord was Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Lord Diamond: I am sorry to delay the Committee, but of course the noble Lord the Minister is right, it was mentioned several times when I was Chief Secretary. What I am seeking to do, as I have said on previous occasions, is drawing on six long years of experience as Chief Secretary, to distinguish between those parts of the Treasury's duties which are inevitable, and therefore have to be accepted, and those parts which are not inevitable. Therefore there is no need for a Treasury Minister to irritate all his colleagues by exercising this kind of veto unnecessarily.
I want to make that distinction, and I want the Committee to move on to the current situation. Of course, it would be irresponsible of me, as the Minister has indicated, to suggest this procedure, knowing that the cost falls on the consumer, unless I had considered what the cost was. I have done my best to do that and I have been greatly assisted by the careful calculation that was made in another place by the Labour Member who was an ex-Secretary of State himself. He was moving an amendment which incorporated the establishment of a much more expensive and much wider ranging system of consumer councils, the original Labour proposal in another place. He worked this out and gave the figures to the Ministers at the committee and he was not contradicted. The total cost therefore to the average consumer, the consumer who pays £200 a year for his gas bill, is one penny over 10 years. Every 10 years, one penny is added to his bill. That is the total cost. You arrive at that figure of course because the number of customers is so enormous; the figure of 16½ million has already been referred to, and you only have to do the arithmetic to know that the consumer is far better off having the widest possible protection and having to pay for it every 10 years, with the large sum of one penny added to his bill.
So I do not think the noble Lord the Minister is on very solid ground when he accuses me of being slightly irresponsible in not thinking of the cost in advance. Of course I have thought about it; it is in my nature so to do. Therefore, I do not think that that is an argument which can hold any water at all. There is no better bargain for the tax consumer than to pay his one penny every 10 years and to get the protection that is provided in the full scheme—not the watered down scheme—of consumer councils, local councils and national councils which we have had.
So I want to ask the Minister in those circumstances whether he ought not to be prepared to consider the suggestion that is made in this amendment.
Lord Belstead: There is nothing between the Government and noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on what a good deal it is for the consumer to have a properly staffed and properly funded consumers council both now and in the future. Indeed, dare I say, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I do not see entirely eye to eye with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who seems to feel that the fact that the gas consumer will have to pay, through his bills, for the new consumers council
896
is a revelation which ought to be noised far and wide because people will not like it. I believe that people will not mind this because the cost will be small and the benefits will be great.
It is difficult for me to say that I will take away the amendment and consider it because even though the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may have had a damascene conversion as regards mentioning the Treasury in a provision of this kind, the present Treasury has had no such conversion. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Diamond: I have to take that disappointing answer in conjunction with the many helpful replies which the Minister has given and to accept that he is not pursuing the tactic which was previously apparently being pursued of brushing aside every amendment, no matter what was its content. I must take that into account and thank the Minister for the consideration given so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Amendment No. 33 has been withdrawn and transferred.
[Amendment No. 33 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Diamond: Perhaps I may explain to the Government Front Bench that two amendments have not been moved so that a short discussion can take place on schedule stand part, this being a shorter way of dealing with the two problems.
I should like an explanation in regard to paragraph 2. This states:
"The Council may pay to any member such sums, whether by way of remuneration or allowances or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine".
I require a reconciliation of these apparently very wide powers and the fact that these are to be Civil Service employees paid Civil Service rates of remuneration or analogous rates. Therefore, we should like to know whether there is anything hidden in the paragraph which the noble Lord the Minister would like to explain to the Committee.
The other amendment which was not moved refers to paragraph 5 which states:
"It shall be the duty of the Council to comply with any notice given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury requiring it to perform duties of a financial nature specified in the notice".
It is not clear what the words "of a financial nature" mean. I shall be grateful if the Minister can explain.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall be delighted to answer the query concerning paragraph 5. It merely means that the Gas Consumers Council must keep proper books, as is perfectly normal in bodies of this nature. It will ensure that the financial aims and priorities are established and that expenditure can be properly scrutinised.

897
The books of the council must be properly audited. Government guidelines are laid down for the way in which non-departmental public bodies such as the Gas Consumers Council should manage their finances, and I refer the noble Lord to a publication issued by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury called Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing sinister in this. It is merely a requirement to keep properly audited books of account.
As regards paragraph 2, this relates to members of the council and not to the staff. The staff will, of course, be under Civil Service pay. This paragraph provides for the payment of members of the council just as the chairmen of the national and regional gas consumers councils are paid today. Members who are regional representatives and the chairman will be paid salaries consistent with those of members of other statutory consumer bodies with similar responsibilities. Both these and other members will be paid a travel and subsistance allowance. It is quite in order that these payments should be determined by the Secretary of State as the members are appointed by him. I hope that clarifies those two paragraphs.
Lord Diamond: I am grateful for that clarification.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord tell the Committee who will be the accounting officer for the Gas Consumers Council?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The short answer is no, I cannot at this stage; but perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with the answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I should like to make a further observation on paragraph 5 for clarification. I find that the description of the kind of operations that the noble Lord has mentioned (which are purely matters of accounting, so far as I can see) such as "to perform duties of a financial nature" is a rather droll way of expressing an obligation to keep accounts.
There have been a number of references to accounts in various statutes over the years, but this is the first time that I have seen such functions described in this way. Would the noble Lord mind taking another look at this phrase, because financial duties could be legally construed as something entirely different? For example, if the council, with the approval of the Secretary of State, were able to buy or take a lease on premises, it could do that quite properly. But of course political gusts of wind often change direction, and it seems to me that paragraph 5 may give a subsequent Secretary of State the power to order the council, as a financial duty, to flog off its premises at half the price. Such things are not entirely unknown. The Government are busy flogging off things at half price all the time.
Perhaps we can take another look at the term "financial duties" to see whether, by the Report stage, we can work out something which expresses the sentiments of the noble Lord rather more accurately in terms either of management or of accounting, or whatever meets more precisely the general sentiments that he was good enough to offer the Committee in explanation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly I agree to do that. I am satisfied that what I have said outlines the nature of the duties which must be performed by the Gas Consumers Council in keeping proper books and that kind of thing. I have no reason to believe that any Secretary of State could in fact order such matters as the noble Lord has described. I imagine that this particular paragraph represents standard practice, but I shall certainly check to find out and make sure that I am right in saying so.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Abolition of Corporation's special privilege]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No 34:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) above until it appears to him to be in the national interest to do so.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34. I refer Members of the Committee to Clause 3 of the Bill, where it says:
"As from such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint for the purposes of this section and the following provisions of this Part (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") the privilege with respect to the supply of gas through pipes conferred on the British Gas Corporation (in this Act referred to as "the Corporation") by section 29 of the 1972 Act shall cease to exist".
This amendment seeks to add by a separate subsection:
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) above until it appears to him to be in the national interest to do so".
In some ways, to introduce an amendment of this kind for the consideration of the Government is to flatter them, and I sincerely trust that they accept it in the spirit in which it is put forward because it presupposes an apprehension in the minds of the Opposition that the Government are capable of thinking in terms of the national interest. Indeed, one sincerely hopes that this may eventually be so. Anything that we on this side of the Committee can do to assist the Government in thinking occasionally in terms of the national interest will, I trust, be sincerely welcomed by them and indeed give cause for loud hand-clapping in the country at large.
It is already quite clear and it is indeed generally accepted among the rank and file Conservative Members in another place, and by quite a large number here, that the whole Bill is not in the national interest. It is common knowledge—and the noble Lord need not bother to deny it—that even members of the Cabinet think that the Bill is a nuisance anyway and is entirely irrelevant. There is a common consensus that the whole purpose of the Bill is merely in order to raise money so that there may be tax handouts before the next general election. We are all on common ground here. If the Government were candid, they would admit that this is the real case for the Bill.
Nevertheless, we now have a Bill which, as it stands, will give power in law on the appointed day for the Government by order to achieve this transformation and to cease to authorise the British Gas Corporation,

899
with its highly successful operations over the years (to which great tribute has been paid from all sides of the Committee, including the Government Benches, by way of crocodile tears) to have any authority to do anything more about gas supplied or charged for or anything else under the sun. That is the purpose of Clause 3. We assume that the appointed day will be coterminous with the transfer date referred to in Clause 49, which gives the Secretary of State the power to effect the transfer of all the assets, rights and liabilities of the corporation to the successor company.
That marks a great change. Control of the operation will pass from a large corporation, which is responsible through the Government to Parliament and which is generally sensitive to the public, to a private plc which, by definition, and indeed by advertisement by the government for the City of London, is responsible to nobody else but its shareholders, although it is curbed and controlled by regulating machinery set up within the legislation.
Time passes; time will pass even after this Committee stage. The political climate in the country may change. We shall not know until tomorrow what change there has been as a result of today's electoral activities. It is by no means certain that the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister will be in office on the appointed day. There is already open gossip in all parts of Westminster as to who her successor will be. She may decide to retire to Dulwich. That will produce a different political circumstance.
Hitherto the Government have operated under the notion that anything that is said by "She who must be obeyed" is automatically in the national interest. That shows how emotional chivalry can produce intellectual apathy among members of the Government. But that may not always be so. We know perfectly well that there are prominent members of the Conservative Party and of the Government in both this House and another place who cannot see the sense of turning a public monopoly into a private monopoly unless of course it was split into competitive components. Things may change and change considerably.
Moreover, it would not be in the public interest or even in the Government's political interest to leave uncertain for too long the time that will elapse between the operation of Clause 49 (the transfer date of the assets and liabilities to the successor company) and the date for the issue of the shares, which by that time would be held by the Government for issue on a date to be determined under Clause 57(6), I believe it is. In short, the Government may decide on those grounds alone that they ought to pause and to recoil from taking a step that is not in the national interest anyway. It is there purely to serve an electoral purpose.
By that time in control of the Conservative Party and the Government there may be people who have regard to the national interest and who are interested in phasing oil exploration and the pace of research and development, without leaving it to straightforward commercial considerations. Indeed, by that time a further factor may have occurred. Oil prices may have gone down even more, producing even more uncertainty. Flotation circumstances might portend very bad things happening. It is commonly agreed in
900
the City that the bull market at present obtaining cannot go on for ever. How do they know that it will be propitious to take this step?
We are trying to help the Government and to give them a way out should they find themselves embarrassed by a whole series of circumstances that they have not the nous to apprehend but that may occur. Say that the noble Lord gets the Bill, say that the ultimate perfection after the application of the majority applies and the Bill is made law, and then there is a pause and any of these things happens! The noble Lord at least has the opportunity of invoking the national interest that he can describe in whatever glowing political terms he may wish. He might suddenly, for the credit of his party, declare the national interest, and the whole operation could be suspended.
The amendment gives discretion to the Government. It is not a wrecking amendment. We are not seeking to defeat the main purposes of the Bill. We are seeking to give the Government some flexibility. If they are wise, they will retreat from a situation that might be untenable and that could involve considerable political embarrassment and place the country in even more difficulties than those that will arise as a result of the passage of the Bill.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has an interesting technique of trying to suggest that the views that he holds so passionately are shared by many noble Lords on this side. I am sorry to disillusion him. I am afraid that it is a fallacy that cannot go uncommented upon or uncorrected. The noble Lord must not suggest that there is nothing between us as to whether the Bill is necessary. My noble friends on this side are firmly convinced that the Bill is necessary. That is why it has been given wholehearted support in another place and why it is being given wholehearted support here.
This is a revising Chamber. As we go through the Bill there are occasions when noble Lords suggest ways in which they feel it might be improved. It is the purpose of this Chamber to try to argue those points and discuss various ways in which changes might improve the Bill. However, it is for the Government, any government, at the end of the day to decide whether those suggestions are credible and whether the Bill would be improved by incorporating what is proposed. I know exactly how the noble Lord feels. He repeats accusations about the reasons for the Bill so often that sometimes I feel he is trying to convince himself. He is certainly not convincing us. He is trying to convince himself.
In any event, to get down to the meat of the amendment, it seeks obviously to introduce the national interest as a criterion in the Secretary of State's decision as to whether or not to make the appointed day order under Clause 3. On the appointed day, the regulatory regime will come into force. This regime is in a number of ways better than what exists at present. It provides better protection for the consumer and also enhanced safety provisions. On and after the appointed day, the Health and Safety executive will, for example, be able to make use of more flexible safety provisions in Clause 18. It is important that these provisions should be

901
implemented at an early stage as British Gas's authorisation will take effect at the same time.
It is clearly necessary to establish public confidence in the new public gas supplier and the regulatory regime. Our aim in privatising British Gas is to create an environment where market forces can control and shape the nature of the industry within the overall framework of regulation set out in the Bill. We believe that this is where the national interest lies rather than in the development of an interventionist regime requiring reference to central government or to Parliament at every turn. Parliament will already have decided that the introduction of the new regulatory regime is in the national interest by approving the Bill. The form and content of the regulatory regime will have been fully debated both here and in another place during the passage of the Bill. The authorisation of British Gas will also have been very fully discussed and considered, and will have been granted to the corporation before the appointed day.
We are satisfied, therefore, that the national interest will have been fully explored before the Bill becomes law, and that the addition of the criterion put forward in the amendment is really unnecessary. I do not suppose I shall be able to convince the noble Lord of that, but he indicated that this was not a wrecking amendment and I have tried to persuade him that it is an unnecessary amendment. I hope that having carefully considered what I have said he might be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know whether or not my noble friend and I shall agree to withdraw the amendment because, frankly, the speech of the noble Lord which we have just heard shows a degree of complacency which the noble Lord does not usually reveal.
In this amendment—and it is a simple and reasonable amendment—we have asked that the Government should not take steps under this Bill when it becomes an Act if the national interest at that particular time is thought to militate against making an order to implement the Bill. All kinds of events can happen between now and then. We are talking about energy. We are not talking about chocolate or sweets or anything like that, but about a great national resource. We are talking about a great national resource at a time when energy sources are in very grave doubt all over the world, in every sense.
For example, we do not know at this stage what the price of oil will be. There are all kinds of rumours and views about what the oil price may be in the next few months. It may be 15 dollars a barrel or 10 dollars a barrel, and Sheikh Yamani has mentioned 5 dollars a barrel. If the price of oil reduces to 5 dollars a barrel inevitably the value of the gas fields will also decline. Under such circumstances the value of the assets will be of a quite different order than at the present time. The value of the assets will be seen as being devalued by those expected to buy them. Therefore, the Government may very well feel that this is not an appropriate time to sell because they would get only half the price that they had expected to obtain.
902
It would be in the national interest, would it not, to delay the implementation of the Bill in those circumstances? It would certainly be in the interests of the taxpayer, although it may very well not be in the interests of the Conservative Party. However, in this Committee we are not interested in the fortunes of the Conservative Party: we are interested in the good of the country and of the taxpayer generally. That is one instance when the national interest may very well demand that the implementation of this Bill is delayed.
There is then the general energy situation, which has been muddied, clouded and dirtied, if I may say so, by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. We do not know what effect that accident will have on sources of energy or on decisions that will be made in relation to the production of energy in the future. Over the next few weeks it may very well become clear exactly which way we shall move. The Government may hold to their decision to build more nuclear power stations. In all the circumstances I believe that that would be the wrong decision. However, they may decide upon it. On the other hand, they may decide not to proceed. Indeed, public opinion may persuade them that they ought to have an advance closing programme of existing power stations. That too would have an effect not only on oil prices but also on coal prices. Inevitably that would also have an effect on gas prices. It might put them up.
If there is to be an energy shortage because of the Chernobyl accident, as there may very well be because of the perceptions of those producing and using energy, it may be in the national interest and in the Government's interest to delay the implementation of this Bill to take advantage of the higher price which the Government might receive. Then they would have more money to bribe the electorate before the next general election. I suppose that that would be in the national interest because the taxpayers would get some money back, and it would also be in the Conservative Party's interest. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government will not accept this amendment.
It is an eminently reasonable amendment. It is about the national interest, and I hope that we are all concerned about the national interest. I hope that the noble Lord will take into account the very real points which my noble friend has made. The noble Lord knows a lot about energy; he has been in the energy field for a long time. I knew him in the other place and he was very good at energy matters. He has a good background. He must know that what I have just said in relation to energy prices and the energy scene has a relevance. Therefore, this amendment has a relevance, and I hope that he will take it seriously.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said, and I agree with him that at present it is very difficult to make predictions in the energy field. It would be a very dangerous prediction to forecast the price of oil in six months' time. The noble Lord is correct about that. However, we have been through all this before. The price of oil can rise as quicky as it can fall; we found that in 1974 and again in 1979.
I shall not be drawn into an argument about nuclear power. No doubt in due course there will be

903
opportunities in this Chamber to discuss these points, and I believe that it would be too much of a diversion to deal with them in depth this evening. However, there is little doubt that, whatever the situation may be in world-wide terms, we in this country are extremely fortunate. We have an abundance of fossil fuel and we have a healthy nuclear power industry. The development of all those sources of energy will continue, as it will with certain of the alternative sources which are proving to be worthwhile, whereas some of those which have not been successful will no doubt be phased out. However, I do not think that that particularly relates to the amendment that we are discussing tonight.
In talking about the national interest the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, sought to specify the criterion of national interest as that the Secretary of State should consider when he acts under Clause 3 to appoint a day. I am surprised that the noble Lord seeks to take away from the Secretary of State the duties which are set out in Clause 4 of the Bill as those which should guide his action under Clause 3. Those duties are much more specific in pointing to the consumer interest than the vague phrase "national interest", which after all could be interpreted on a very wide basis. I suggest to the noble Lord that indeed I can outdo him in my advocacy of consumer interests. I do not believe that what the noble Lord seeks to do—I appreciate that the amendment is to some extent a probing amendment—adds anything to what we are already trying to do. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am bound to say that I find it very difficult to visualise a situation in which, on the appointed day, the whole activities of the British Gas Corporation, about which there has been but little complaint over the past 10 years, would suddenly suffer a degree of danger in terms of safety if action were not taken immediately on the basis suggested by the noble Lord. It is completely ridiculous. The Gas Corporation (which will have its name changed but its employees will remain the same) will for some time until commercial pressures begin to press upon it do what it has been doing very successfully so far.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord has been unable to take advantage of the opportunity I afforded him of reconsidering the whole matter on the basis of the national interest. The national interest is something, to use the Government phrase, the Government ought to "keep under review" every day. All I am doing is affording them an opportunity to do so. It should be regarded by them as a neat way out of an impossible situation in which they might easily find themselves over this next three or four months, even in political let alone economic terms. If the noble Lord declines to accept my help in this matter by my giving him a perfect and honourable way out of this untenable situation, I shall confer my generosity upon him no longer and ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord rejected the advice that I tendered him and the opportunity I gave him to save his face in certain circumstances. But now we come back to the harsh question of duty and parliamentary approval for the action that is taken. We said earlier, and I ventured to suggest to the Committee earlier when discussing the last amendment, that this was a very momentous occasion. The power under the Bill should not be exercised except in circumstances of considerable ventilation in both Houses of Parliament. This amendment provides that any order made under subsection (1) should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be able to agree with this immediately, appreciating the gravity of the situation that might conceivably arise. I am sure that he would not want to take a momentous step without either House of Parliament being able to consider the matter further. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: I understand that it is to the convenience of the Committee that this amendment should be discussed with the following amendment, No. 35A, which is in my name and which proposes, instead of the affirmative resolution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who moved the amendment prior to this one, the negative form as being sightly less onerous. Let me make it absolutely clear that I would have preferred the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but the Government have given no sign that they are prepared to move in the way that we think they should and therefore this is a second but less-favoured alternative.
Perhaps I could use this opportunity to make it clear that the reason I did not support the previous amendment verbally was that there is considerable difficulty in my mind in interpreting the words "in the national interest". It is very difficult to say that the national interest is not the national interest as interpreted by the Government of the day. Therefore, if it appears to the Secretary of State to be in the national interest, then that is very little protection to those who do not share the same views.
However, as the Governnment have turned that down I am sure that they will recognise that this is, as has been said, a most important occasion. The Government are taking a most important and highly responsible step which they could regret very much if they made a mistake. I should have thought that they would have welcomed the opportunity to consult Parliament, if not in the positive way suggested by the amendment which has been moved at all events by giving Parliament the opportunity to make its views known under the negative procedure, which my more modest amendment proposes.
Lord Gray of Contin: I thank both noble Lords who have spoken for tabling these two similar

905
amendments. I have listened carefully to the points raised during the debate. First, it may be helpful if I explain to the Committee what is the practical effect of an order under Clause 3. The type of order is what is commonly known as a commencement order. It will indentify a particular day, called the appointed day, on which the bulk of the provisions in Part I of the Bill will come into force. Clauses 1 and 2 will come into force before the appointed day so that before that day the Director General of Gas Supply and his staff may be appointed and the Gas Consumers Council may be set up.
On the appointed day, the regulatory regime and the authorisation which will already have been granted to British Gas will come into force. Both will have been fully debated here and in another place during the passage of the Bill. The only remaining question which could be relevant to a debate on the appointed day order would be the date specified in the order. A debate would be totally inappropriate when the provisions had just been subject to the fullest scrutiny and debate in both Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, I think that making the appointed day order subject to affirmative resolution procedures—which is the effect of both amendments—is really unnecessary and probably undesirable. It would cause delay and inflexibility in introducing the new regulatory regime, which will bring real advantages to consumers, and it could also mean that the transfer of the ownership of the industry to its employees and the public at large could also be delayed. I hope that perhaps on reflection, and in view of what I have said, noble Lords of both opposition parties will agree that such a delay would be highly undesirable, and for those reasons will consider withdrawing their amendments.
Viscount Hanworth: I think the noble Lord simply does not realise how many of us have the gravest doubts about the privatisation of the gas industry. As one said on Second Reading, the obviously sensible course, were it not for the fact that the Government want the money for the next election, would have been to find out how things went with British Telecom. They ought not to rush into another privatisation, which is opposed by a very large number of people. What these amendments really seek to do is to say, "For goodness sake, at the last moment leave yourselves the opportunity of waiting and having more sense than rushing ahead bald-headed."
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I take issue with what has just been said over the question of what is the purpose of this Bill. I have listened at great length to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who seems to take issue with the City on every possible occasion and to take isssue also with the views of the Conservative Party on every possible occasion. But surely one of the great advantages of this Bill is that there is wider share ownership in prospect. It may not please members of the Opposition and particularly those on the Alliance Benches, but 14 per cent. of adults now own shares; that is 6 million people. That is a great improvement on the numbers in 1976, when only 1·8 million people in this country owned shares. It may also interest the Committee to know that 900
906
employee shareholding schemes are now in operation, whereas in 1979 there were only 30.
In the context of this Bill surely we must get away from the fact—which I know the Opposition Benches long to put to us—that this is a purely money-grabbing operation on the part of the Government. My view is that wider share ownership by individuals is something that this Government ought to pursue, and pursue as fast as possible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord's response to the argument is one example of the increasing sensitivity of the party opposite to the irrelevance of this particular Bill. But the purpose of my rising is to ask the noble Lord a purely technical question which I am quite sure he will be able to answer immediately. Line 1 of Clause 3 says:
"As from such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
Can the noble Lord inform us whether that order will be in a form in which it can be prayed against in either House of Parliament? Will it be in the form of a statutory instrument or will it be just an order that nobody knows about? This is a purely technical query and there is no barb of any sort in it.
Viscount Hanworth: I cannot understand how it is possible to argue that share ownerhip is of the slightest importance, though of course in a company such as Vickers it means a lot. Shareholders have no control and they will not attend annual meetings. I think this is a complete and utter red herring.
Lord Gray of Contin: I always have the greatest regard for the views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who is normally very constructive and forward-looking in his attitudes. However, I must say that I am rather disappointed tonight and I am saddened that he takes such a gloomy view of what is envisaged. Perhaps I have not fully understood the policy of his party, but I thought they were in favour of wider share ownership and of encouraging those who are employed in an industry to be able to participate in shareholdings and to feel part of—
Viscount Hanworth: That is a different matter.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Viscount says that is a different matter, but it is not without a relationship to what we are talking about. However, the noble Viscount has his own view on that. I thought that my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden really took a much more—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Conservative view!
Lord Gray of Contin: Conservative view; the noble Lord has answered for me! Indeed, it is a much more Conservative view because it is the essence of what this Government have been seeking to do for seven years and what we all hope they will continue to do for another seven years.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me about the type of order. I can tell him that there is not an order. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to Clause 64(2), which may be of assistance to him; it is spelt out there

907
and the answer is available to the noble Lord. I do not think I shall persuade noble Lords opposite of the folly of pursuing the amendments which they have tabled in this case. I was not persuaded by their arguments and even after a second go at those amendments I am still not persuaded. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We are most anxious to press ahead with business without undue delay and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 36:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of operations of the British Gas Corporation to the private sector.
3.—(1) The British Gas Corporation (referred to below in this section as the Corporation) shall submit to the Secretary of State written proposals providing for—

(a) the disposal, in preparation for the dissolution of the Corporation, of the whole of their undertaking, with such exceptions only as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the proposals;

(b) the disposal of the whole or any part of the undertaking, or of any particular property, rights or liabilities, of any of their subsidiaries the disposal of which appears to the Corporation to be appropriate in preparation for the dissolution of the Corporation; and

(c) the arrangements to be made in preparation for the dissolution of the Corporation for any matter for which provision appears to the Corporation to be appropriate for the purposes of or in connection with the dissolution.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(c) above, the arrangements there mentioned may include provision for the making by the Corporation or any subsidiary of theirs, to persons employed by them or any such subsidiary who do not by virtue of any disposal in pursuance of the proposals fall to be treated as employed by any other person, of payments by way of compensation in respect of the loss of their employment.
(3) The proposals shall be submitted before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force or such further period as the Secretary of State may from time to time allow by notice in writing to the Corporation.
(4) In this section "the Corporation's disposal programme" means (as the case may require)—

(a) the proposals submitted by the Corporation under this section;

(b) those proposals as approved by the Secretary of State under subsection (7) below; or

(c) the proposals formulated by the Secretary of State under subsection (8) below;

(subject, in a case within paragraph (b) or (c) above, to any modifications under subsection (10) below).

(5) The Corporation's disposal programme shall describe—

(a) the general approach the Corporation plan to adopt in relation to the manner in which disposals for which the programme provides are to be carried out (including the intended time-scale for major stages in implementing the programme);

(b) the general scope and purpose of such disposals and the estimated effect at each such stage of the disposals carried out up to that time on any remaining operations of the Corporation and any of their subsidiaries;

(c) the measures (if any) which the Corporation propose to take, for the purpose of preparing for any such disposals, by way of reorganisation of the structure or operations of the Company and any of their subsidiaries; and

(d) the manner in which the Corporation's main objectives and duties are to be implemented in relation to the proposals included in the programme.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5)(c) above, the measures there mentioned may include the formation
908
or promotion of new subsidiaries and the reconstruction, amalgamation, dissolution or winding up of any existing subsidiaries.
(7) The Secretary of State may approve the Corporation's disposal programme without modifications or with such modifications as, after consultation with the Corporation, he thinks fit.
(8) If any proposals submitted by the Corporation under this section appear to the Secretary of State to be so defective, with respect to any matters those proposals are required in accordance with subsection (5) above to describe, as to be unsuitable for adopting (with any appropriate modifications) as a basis for carrying out the disposals mentioned in subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Corporation, formulate proposals of his own to have effect as the Corporation's disposal programme in substitution for the Corporation's proposals.
(9) When the Secretary of State has approved the Corporation's disposal programme or formulated proposals of his own to have effect as that programme, it shall be the duty of the Corporation to implement the programme before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force or before such date after the end of that period as may be prescribed.
(10) The Secretary of State may from time to time, at the request of the Corporation or of his own motion, make such modifications in the Corporation's disposal programme as, after consultation with the Corporation, he thinks fit.
(11) The exercise by the Secretary of State of any of his powers under the preceding provisions of this section requires the consent of the Treasury.").
The noble Lord said: I must admit that the more I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the more I began to think that there may be some merits in this Bill which I have not always entirely appreciated. I must also admit that this amendment has somewhat far-reaching implications and I apologise to your Lordships for inflicting it upon you at this late hour. But although its implications are somewhat far-reaching, I venture to hope that it will commend itself to my noble friend on the Government Front Bench.
I venture to hope this essentially for three reasons. First, it is designed, I believe, to fulfil the commitments which were contained in the manifesto which the Conservative Party put to the electorate at the last election, and I just want to recall one or two brief phrases. It reads:
"A company which has to satisfy its customers and compete to survive is more likely to be efficient, alert to innovation and generally accountable to the public. In the next Parliament we shall seek means of increasing competition in the gas industry".
I am making selective quotations. It goes on:
"Merely to replace state monopolies by private ones would be to waste an historic opportunity".
Secondly, subsequent to the last election my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is of course the Minister responsible for the privatisation programme, made a very important keynote speech to which I made reference in the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I shall not weary the Committee by repeating the quotations which I gave on that occasion, but, as I see it, the essence of the speech of my right honourable friend in another place was encapsulated in three propositions: that privatisation alone was not enough, that competition and the development of competition was essential, and that gas, among other industries, whatever else it might be, was not a natural monopoly. I venture to submit to your Lordships that this amendment

909
enables the Government to take gas out of the position of a monopoly.
10 p.m.
My third reason for thinking that this, admittedly fairly major, change to the Bill will appeal to my noble friend on the Front Bench is that it is the Government's own clause. I am sure that my noble friend will immediately recognise its provenance. I just wanted to remind the Committee of what was said by my noble friend Lord Brabazon on 11th June last year in favour of this proposition. He said:
"In the Government's view it is inevitable that in monopolies of this sort the operators and their staff are protected from the normal pressures which force businesses to consider what their customers want, to think of new ways of meeting that demand, and to control costs and operate efficiently … Competition is the best way of introducing pressure on the industry's costs … To make a success of the free market we have to tackle the structure of the industry, the dominance of the large public sector operators".—[Official Report, 11/6/85; cols. 1133–1134].
This was, as I am sure my noble friend will recognise, in support of precisely the proposition which is encapsulated in this amendment.
I listened with considerable interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had to say about Clause 3. He seemed to think that it was designed to achieve the most remarkable changes. I have been reading the Notes on Clauses and they make it absolutely clear that it is not designed to achieve any changes at all—none whatsoever. The important point is the statement in the clause that,
"the privilege with respect to the supply of gas through pipes conferred on the British Gas Corporation … by Section 29 of the 1972 Act shall cease to exist"
is entirely invalidated in practice by the provisions of Clause 7(9) and Clause 8(5) of the Bill. They make it absolutely clear, as the Notes on Clauses make it clear, that this represents no change whatsoever from the position which was introduced by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982.
It was subsequent to the passage of that legislation that the undertakings were written into the Government's manifesto at the 1983 election. So the reality, which I must say seemed to be light years removed from the comments on Clause 3 by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—I suspect that his reading matter must not recently have included the Notes on Clauses—is that this clause effectively makes no transition whatsoever.
It would be helpful to find out why the commitments that were advanced at the time of the 1983 election and subsequently for the need for genuine introduction of competition into this industry subsequently somehow got lost along the way, as I am bound to say they were somewhat when we look at the clause as it stands. I still do not feel that we have had a clear explanation about this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has talked about there never having been in the history of this country competing gas pipes going up an individual street. He is wrong about that historically. That is precisely what happened 130 or 140 years ago. I am not suggesting for a moment—and I do not think anyone would—that we should return to that position but that does not mean to say that the only alternative to competing supplies to the householder is to have the
910
wholesale transfer holus-bolus of Sir Denis Rooke and his monopoly into the private sector.
The alternative route is to take the course that was taken in the case of the National Bus Company. The clause that I am proposing this evening is designed to achieve precisely that for the British Gas Corporation; to dismantle it into its component parts so that we break up not only the monopoly role of the corporation as a supplier but also, I would venture to argue, possibly even more important, the monopoly role of the corporation as a purchaser. The more that I listen to the arguments from the Opposition Benches, the more that I feel we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We are presented with the appalling thought of a gas corporation that is going to rip off the consumer.
When I look back at the record of the gas corporation hitherto and the statements of its chairman, what worries me is not that the corporation will rip off the consumer, but that it will rip off the supplier and very probably its shareholders. Those are the people who are at risk from a corporation that seems to me, from its experience hitherto, to be dedicated to the maximisation of market share and to the acquisition of market share by vigorous underpricing on the basis of a sort of Reithian, magisterial approach to the consumer and the conviction that the corporation must know best. It is that aspect that worries me and to which, I am bound to say, we have not received a very clear response from the Government.
The other argument that we hear from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is that to follow the route of the National Bus Company in breaking the British Gas Corporation into its component parts would delay the process of privatisation. I am bound to say that even if that were true—and I am not convinced that it is, because there is no evidence that it has been true in the case of the National Bus Company—it would be better to delay a little to get it right than to proceed at the maximum possible pace and get it wrong. I am bound to say also that one wonders a little about whether this autumn will be the ideal time to float a major energy utility, given the surrounding market conditions.
Frankly, I still feel that the real architect and manufacturer of this legislation as it stands is the chairman of the British Gas Corporation, I think that his fingerprints are all over this Bill to an extent that I find highly undesirable, both from the point of view of potential suppliers and also, I suspect, from the point of view of his potential shareholders.
The hour is late and I do not want to delay the Committee. I venture to remind my noble friends of the lesson we have seen from the actions of the regulator in the case of Oftel and British Telecom. I do not see the picture that is frequently represented from the other side of the Committee. What we are seeing is a fundamental conflict of interests that is not easily resolved. It is not an acceptable substitution for competition. We are seeing just at this moment that Oftel is expecting British Telecom to desist from price competition with Mercury. It is not by any means clear to me that that sort of desistance can be in the interests of a proper commercial activity for British Telecom.
I think that here, too, there is an example of the dangers of that sort of regulation as an alternative to

911
competition. I do not think there is such an alternative, and I believe that if my noble friends will accept this amendment as drafted, drawn from their own legislation, we shall have a far better market pattern than we shall with the clause as it stands in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I find this a most interesting amendment. I am afraid that we on this side of the Committee may be trespassing somewhat on a family feud between those on the opposite side who wish to see the Conservative Party manifesto put into action and those who do not wish the Conservative Party manifesto of 1983 put into action. As I understand it, the amendment's purpose is to suggest an improved form of privatisation. In other words, the movers of the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, was very clear on Second Reading that he took this view—feel that the way in which the Government are setting about this privatisation is an unsatisfactory one.
I want to make it perfectly clear from these Benches that we disagree with the principle of privatisation and we have said that many times. I am not going to say it more than twice, possibly, in my response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we regard privatisation, the question of whether the industry should be privatised, as one which is entirely political and one which has, for the purposes of this Committee, been settled, and what we are trying to do at the moment is to consider how far we can improve the processes by which that main purpose is achieved.
The movers of the amendment, I believe, have to answer some quite substantial questions about the import of their amendment if they are to present (if I may put it like this) a complete and fully rational case. The first question is: how can we be sure, if this amendment is pursued, and indeed accepted by the Government, that the investment plans, which are perfectly understandable in an integrated industry, are understandable if the industry is split up as the movers of the amendment propose? How can we be sure that the allocation of capital in a very capital-intensive industry is made in a way which is both sensible and does not involve over-investment? Those who are proponents of the integrated industry will argue that since British Gas has access to all relevant information centrally through its regional sales organisations, particularly on investment in supply, it is able to direct investment in a rational and sensible manner, and that this feature would be entirely removed if the industry itself were to be split up into its component parts.
The next question which I think the movers of the amendment have to answer is: how does a disintegrated industry (if I can use that expression) take advantage of the opportunities that British Gas has of estimating weather patterns, for instance, across the country, and forecasting accurately so as to minimise the supply requirement? Again, we come back to the question of investment, and, if the industry is disintegrated, we may see over-investment in order to cope with that particular problem.
Then there is the question which again would need to be raised as to how the disintegrated industry would
912
meet its full supply obligations, its full public interest obligations; how it would handle industral relations (at the moment there is a very clear trade union structure within the integrated industry) how, as a disintegrated industry, it would handle its training programmes (would they be left to each individual component?); how it would handle its research and development into the whole question of gas technology; and how one can enforce national standards which obviously are desirable across the whole country when you have a series of privately owned individual gas companies.
10.15 p.m.
These are questions which I raise because I am sure that the movers of the amendment will wish to address themselves to them and since without some further pursuit of these points it will be very difficult to reach a view. As I understand it, there are essentially three solutions to the present gas industry problem. The first is our solution, which is for the Government to withdraw the Bill. However, I understand that the Government do not wish to withdraw the Bill. The second is the Government's solution which is, and I think is recognised on all sides of the Committee, to create a private monopoly—a private monopoly which we on this side of the House believe is inadequately controlled and with inadequate representation for consumers, and all the other things we have been discussing today. The third possibility is that put forward by the movers of the amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Bruce-Gardyne and Lord Harris of High Cross. They say that neither of those two options is the right solution but that the Government should adopt quite a different stance and break the whole thing up.
So far as we are concerned on this side of the Committee we would be very interested to hear what response the Government are to make to their noble friend on the substance of this amendment. I come back to where I started; it seems to us that we are perhaps interfering in a family quarrel about what are the real objectives of the Conservative Party. However interesting that may be, it does not obscure the fact that by moving this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has posed a very serious question for the Government and we, like him, will be interested to hear the response.
Lord Ezra: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, raises a very important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just made clear. The underlying significance is that it implies that the Bill, as drafted, changes nothing at all so far as British Gas is concerned. However, what it does do is imply a degree of risk for third parties. On this side of the House we feel that the third party most likely to be adversely affected unless suitably protected is the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, takes the view that the third parties most likely to be affected are the suppliers and the potential shareholders.
Whatever it might be, this transference as proposed in the Bill as it now stands implies a risk for third parties which previously did not exist, and therefore the whole purpose of the amendments which we are so lengthily and in such detail going through is to try to

913
erect certain barriers to protect those third parties. If that is all that the Bill is achieving—namely, to create risk where previously there was no risk—is not a possible fourth solution to defer the application of Clause 3 until we can work all this out?
Lord Harris of High Cross: In supporting the noble Lord's amendment, I have to express regrets and whatever apology is appropriate that so far I have been unable to take an extensive part in these debates. I have attended to what has been said while I have been here, and I have read Hansard with some care. All I have read and heard leaves me in no doubt that the method by which the Government, under pressure from those higher forces we have heard of, have chosen to denationalise the British Gas Corporation has the most serious deficiencies.
As an economist, I have an abomination for monopoly. Indeed, I was partly moved towards wishing to break up the monopoly that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond threatened to establish over the discussions of this Committee stage. Many strong supporters of the Government have expressed misgivings over what is the statutory entrenchment of a private monopoly. There is a good deal of literature on this kind of issue, and, as a professional economist, I would argue that a public monopoly is almost always even more objectionable and disreputable than a private monopoly. It is second or third best.
The reason is one that noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have given, that the reality of what is called public control—of which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wants more—or rather the reality behind public control is of course political control, which leads to policies of pricing and investment and all that he was talking about, which are governed by short-term, often party-electoral expediency rather than by long-term economic criteria.
When I have had doubts about whether to sustain the Government in the Lobby against their adversaries, I have thrown caution to the winds and lent my support to the Government on every occasion because I have rejoiced to hear Ministers get up and say that one cannot trust politicians—"even us" they say—with these monopoly powers. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington saying in the most artless way that I have ever heard him say anything that all that Ministers have to do is to take a self-denying ordinance and tell their civil servants not to interfere in pricing and investment policies—as though that would last long, or survive a change of government. The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has raised means that we do not have to make this second or third rate choice of accepting a monopoly.
Of course, as he said, one cannot have competition in delivering gas to individual households, but the distribution of gas can be divided among half a dozen or more private regional companies, between which there could be comparison in performance. That would make up a régime which, on the whole, would promote gains in total efficiency, as the more enterprising regions set an example to the laggards.
The dispersal of initiative and responsibility invariably yields better results over any but the very
914
shortest period. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, has said, there are special advantages in breaking the monopoly and monopsony power of British Gas as a single buyer from the North Sea and elsewhere. At the same time, if we had this kind of regime, we could settle for a much less oppressive regulatory regime and allow the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to sleep more peacefully in his bed.
Why have the Government thought that decentralisation is appropriate for breaking up the National Bus Company? Why are they proposing to apply the regional or area devolution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, to denationalising the water supply companies, when they get round to it? And why is more serious consideration not being given to decentralisation in the supply and distribution of gas? To say that the Secretary of State and the chairman of the British Gas Corporation are satisfied simply increases my apprehensions and indeed my certainty that this is not the best way of proceeding.
I shall simply say that I shall tramp through the Lobby for exercise and refreshment with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, if he feels so disposed; but I certainly regard this as a kind of paving Motion, because if this kind of clause is not acceptable we shall come back at odd moments through the gruelling days ahead to offer a number of specific amendments that will weaken the oppressive monopoly of Sir Denis Rooke and will open a few cracks and crevices to competition. That is what the Government should be contemplating under this amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had to say. I know that my noble friend has held strong views on this matter for a long time and he and I have discussed it from time to time. I must confess that I was impressed but not surprised when I saw the new clause that had been tabled. However, I must tell them that we too have done a certain amount of homework. We spotted, as my noble friend confirmed, that the new clause is based on Section 47 of the Transport Act 1985, which permitted the transfer of the operations of the National Bus Company to the private sector as separate undertakings.
I shall come back to that in a moment or two, but first let me say to my noble friend that I was relieved about one thing: that it never has been his intention that in privatising the British Gas Corporation we should break it up to the extent of breaking up the distribution, although that would be the logical conclusion if we were to break it up completely. The environmental consequences of such a break-up would cause havoc throughout the country. No doubt my noble friend took that into account when he decided that he could not go quite as far as that.
My noble friend also suggested that the way the British Gas Corporation was being privatised had the hallmark of Sir Denis Rooke stamped all over it. The fact that he has been a highly successful chairman of the corporation and that he has not expressed concern about the way in which the Government propose to privatise—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Come off it!
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord must be fair. Sir Denis Rooke has not come out publicly and said that he agrees with every conceivable thing that the Government seek to do, but he has said that in his view they have proceeded with the privatisation measure in the way most acceptable to the industry. That is a certain commendation which I am not too bashful to accept.
I do not think it can be said that because he has approved it that necessarily means that it is not good. I think what he has said is an additional reason for thinking that we have it just about right; just as when Britoil was privatised the chairman of BNOC, who is now a Member of this House, was sympathetic to what was being created. He felt that the time had come when it was right for Britoil to go into the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, presented a number of questions to my noble friend about the amendment. I shall not attempt to answer those because it is for my noble friend if he sees fit to take them up. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that it might be a good idea to delay implementation of the Bill. He will not be surprised to learn that I can hardly go along with that. The sooner that it is through Parliament and is implemented, the better for the consumer, for those who work in the industry and for those who seek to acquire shares and become a part of the new corporation.
If I may return to Section 47 of the Transport Act on which the amendment is based, the situation in relation to gas is quite different. Where transport is concerned there are regional transport authorities and it makes sense for local transport policy to be formulated in the light of the choices available. No such choices exist in the case of gas, the backbone of which is the integrated transmission network established by British Gas since the advent of natural gas.
Attempts have been made to argue that splitting the corporation into area boards serving different parts of the country would introduce greater competition. It is probable that few pieces of legislation have received more consideration by the Secretary of State for Energy than that now before the Committee. My right honourable friend looked at all the options available to him. Although the possibility was considered, my right honourable friend has made clear on a number of occasions that it soon became evident that splitting the corporation into regional companies would not achieve greater competition. Each consumer would still be faced with a single supplier of gas; the economies of scale available through the integrated transmission and distribution system would be put at risk; and there would be the added disadvantage for consumers of greater regional diversities in price and disruption in the pattern of supply. The Government concluded therefore that the interests of consumers would best be served by keeping British Gas as an integrated unit.
There is a further point. The existing Clause 3 has no bearing on the disposal of the corporation as such. It simply enables the regulatory provisions in Part I of the Bill to be brought into operation. It is essential therefore that it remains in place. I have listened carefully to the arguments deployed by my noble friend
916
Lord Bruce-Gardyne and by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, but I am not persuaded that there would be any benefit to consumers in splitting the corporation in the way suggested. Indeed, as I have indicated, splitting up the corporation would have positive disadvantages for the consumer. I am sure that when my noble friend considers the consumer in this way he may be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I have listened with great care and interest to my noble friend's reply. I am grateful to him for giving what I believe is the first considered explanation from the Government Benches of what seems to have been a remarkable volte-face between the last election and the drafting of the legislation. I must honestly tell my noble friend that I am not by any means convinced by the arguments that he has advanced for safeguarding the consumer. I remain of the view that the performance of competing regional boards might be a much better way of judging the interests of the consumer and also the interests of the suppliers. My noble friend did not reply to that point.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, posed a number of interesting and important questions about the issues arising from the concept of this clause. As it seems perfectly possible in this Chamber to produce something very similar by way of amendment at a later stage, the noble Lord will perhaps do precisely that and so enable us, at that later stage, to have a lengthier discussion about the important issues that he raised and that other noble Lords have raised in this area. In the meantime, with sadness and regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4
[General duties of Secretary of State and Director]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) to ensure that gas supplies are managed and used in accordance with national interest and without detriment to other fuels and energy sources;").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment. It should be discussed at great length but, at this time of night, I shall have to shorten what I intended to say following the long debate on the previous amendment that did not, however, proceed to a vote. That suprised me, bearing in mind the strong views of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne. This amendment is concerned with managing energy supplies in the national interest without detriment to other fuel sources.
The amendment attempts to put the gas industry into a national energy policy framework. The Government have always indicated that the best energy policy is one which depends totally on the operation of the free market. That is a concept with which we fundamentally disagree, because energy is not susceptible to the free market. Investment decisions are long term and cannot be left to the free

917
play of market forces. For example, how on earth at the present time can one make investment decisions about building new power stations or digging new coal mines? We know perfectly well that by the turn of the century the price of coal will have moved up from its present low level on the world market. We know perfectly well that by the year 2000 coal will be in much greater demand and the price will be at a premium whereas at the moment it is at a discount.
Is it right that we should make a decision at this point in time not to sink new mines which we shall need after the turn of the century when North Sea oil begins to run out? Is it right that we should make that decision on the basis of discounted coal prices? If we take the decision with world coal prices at their present level, then we shall not sink coal mines which we shall need at the turn of the century. That is why one cannot leave energy matters to the free play of the market place.
The same is also true with other energy sources. I have mentioned before that we have to have a policy in relation to our power stations as to how we generate electricity, what the mix of fuels will be, how much electricity we shall generate from coal, oil, nuclear power, and what effort we shall make in the renewable energies field and in the field of conservation. One cannot look at those factors in isolation. They all need to be integrated because they are all part of the same policy. That is a policy of adequate energy, not for tomorrow or next year, or even the end of this decade, but well into the next century. That is why it is necessary that our fuels should be managed in an integrated manner.
I am not the only person who says this. There are many other people who say it. Indeed, I noticed in the May issue of Circuit News—which the Electricity Council kindly send me every month—an article by Mr. Philip Jones, who was of course not only the chairman of the Electricity Council but worked at a high level in the Department of Energy, so he knows his onions. He not only knows them from the point of view of the electricity industry but of the whole energy scene because he has worked in the department. This is what he had to say:
"Britain needs a basic energy plan to help it make the best use of natural resources well into the 21st century"—
he is looking much further ahead than I have been looking tonight—
"Electricity Council Chairman Philip Jones told a congress of civil engineers last month.
The wealth of energy resources made Britain the envy of other industrialised nations, but he wondered whether history would show that these resources had been mismanaged through a lack of proper planning and co-ordination. Although the four main energy industries—electricity, gas, coal and oil—have individual objectives, they clearly did not operate in isolation.
'If we continue to compartmentalise the energy sectors and fail to recognise their interdependence, then we may well fail to gain the maximum advantage from the country's resources,' he said."
In actual fact we are compounding the existing compartmentalisation of the energy market and of the various fuels.
Gas itself is a premium fuel. It is a fuel which is easily used and easily transmitted. However, under private enterprise, under private control, without any governmental control apparently, it may very well be that those resources, which are scarce resources, could
918
be used in a wasteful fashion by, for example, predatory prices against the electricity industry in order that the gas industry can get a higher market share at the expense of the electricity supply industry. That would be wasteful of our resources, and that is what I am talking about in this amendment.
If that happened, it would mean that replacement programmes for power stations would be badly affected, with knock-on effects elsewhere. It also means that gas, which, as I mentioned before, is a premium fuel, would be depleting at a faster rate to take advantage of lower prices; and this in turn would lead to shortages in the future, with detriment not only to the domestic consumer but to industry as well.
Therefore, for all those reasons it seems to me that we need some amendment written into this Bill. I believe that my amendment would do this; but there are also some other amendments which are similar and which deal with some of the same points. It seems to me that we must have something like this in the Bill in order to ensure that we and the privatised gas industry pursue an energy policy which is not merely in the interests of the shareholders, but in the interests of the nation.
I am afraid that the present Government simply do not have a good record. They are hooked on the idea that market forces will sort out the energy scene, that market forces will do everything that is necessary to ensure that at the appropriate time we have an adequacy of fuels and various types of energy.
Through the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 the Government threw away any influence they had over the North Sea. They have allowed our oil reserves to be depleted at a very fast rate to the extent that they are now prepared to deplete them at a high rate just at the time when oil prices are very low. They completed their policy of getting out of energy planning by the Oil and Pipelines Act which went through this House in, I believe, 1985.
I am losing my voice, and I really have said all I need to say at present. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say, and I shall sit down and wait for him. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: At the outset I ought to declare an interest in so far as I am, to some degree, connected with the EMA trades union which is concerned with electric power generation. I have down an amendment, Amendment No. 48A, which is similar to this one. I propose not to move mine but to speak to this one.
This amendment is intended to give the Secretary of State and the director of Ofgas power to promote effective and fair competition in commercial activities connected with the supply of fuel and power. In other words, there must not be unfair competition with electricity and coal. In my Second Reading speech I stressed that difficulties would be likely to arise when one of the three main energy providers was privatised and the other two—that is, electricity and coal—were not.
Over the years all governments have been anxious to keep a balance between gas, electricity and coal so that each of them remains competitive. When gas is

919
privatised it would be possible for the new owners to resort to dubious commercial tactics which could not be matched by the nationalised competitors. The power given in this amendment might never be used, but it would act as a deterrent against unfair competition. If it is claimed that that would not arise, one need only refer to the situation which occurred with gas appliances.
But, more importantly, the distortion which can result from a misguided pricing policy is set out in paragraph 47 of the report of the Select Committee on energy, development and depletion of United Kingdom resources. I find it hard to know why the Government might be (I hope they will not be) opposed to this amendment, as they were in the Commons.
The Government usually seem to want powers which Parliament strives to deny them. Possibly the explanation was that they had not time to think about the amendment or they did not want to frighten prospective buyers by inserting provisions which are relatively undefined. But if the Government really want privatisation to work in the national and the consumer interests, they must take the necessary powers to be sure that it does. I hope that even if the Minister cannot agree this amendment tonight, he will at least consider what I am trying to say.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I have tabled a later amendment, Amendment No. 49, which, like the noble Viscount's amendment, is effectively subsumed in the same argument. So, like the noble Viscount, I should like to say a brief word on this amendment rather than move my own amendment at a later stage.
I, too, share the anxieties which have been expressed on both sides of the Committee about the implications of competition between a privatised gas corporation and the CEGB still in the public sector and required to purchase the bulk of its supplies from the National Coal Board at prices which, frankly, do not remotely reflect current market levels. My noble friend the Minister of State will know that recently the Department of Energy has been regularly saying that price negotiations between the CEGB and the coal board are entirely a matter for those two bodies. That is absolute rubbish. Are the Government seriously saying that if the CEGB decides to take its supplies exclusively from imported coal or switch over a mass of power stations to oil, it will be at liberty to do so? If the Government are saying that, then indeed we can contemplate, I think, a fair and open area of competition between a privatised gas corporation supervised by Ofgas and the CEGB as a competitive supplier. But I would be amazed to hear that that is really what the Government are saying. So long as the CEGB is required to take the bulk of its supplies at way above market prices in order to keep the Coal Board in the style of life to which it is accustomed, then clearly there could be a situation where the British Gas Corporation in the private sector was taking market share not by predatory pricing in the sense of cross-subsidisation (such as that about which Oftel is pursuing an argument with British Telecom at the present time) but by perfectly commercial pricing
920
which the CEGB was unable to meet. I think that this is a major issue on which, for the reasons which have already been advanced, we need to know the Government's thinking. Certainly, mine was intended to be only a probing amendment and I shall join with other noble Lords in listening anxiously to what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Ezra: The issue raised by noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of the Committee is of such far-reaching importance that I hope that we shall be able to do it justice either now or at some later stage. There is this fundamental issue of a change in the whole deployment of the energy resource of the country with, as has been pointed out, two major enterprises remaining under public control and one now being put under private control. Unless there is some long stop or provision of the sort proposed under this amendment, it looks as if there could be very serious situations arising at some future date as a result of the inequality of this situation.
Lord Belstead: I must say that I think it comes all right from my own side of the Committee to hear expressions of concern about how the public utilities which remain in the public sector are going to fare compared with a great public utility which is being put into the private sector. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will take it in good part when I say to him that I do not think that it lies in his mouth, having over three days now from that side of the Committee criticised the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy in putting British Gas into the private sector, then to stand up at the end of a long day to say to the Government that that is unfair because British Gas will do too well.
The fact of the matter is that this is a nonsensical amendment because neither the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, nor the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to both of whom I listened with interest, addressed themselves to the missing ingredient in their speeches—which is: how is this going to be done? When the Government say that we are suspicious, as indeed we are, that Ministers and civil servants might be expected to work out some sort of grand plan in which all the industries are allocated a role which they must carry out, and according to a rigid set of rules, I think that we have some reason to have that suspicion. When we say that, on the contrary, we believe that business and individuals should make up their own minds about the best kind of fuel for their needs, and that the industry should go out into the market place and sell their products in the way that they understand best, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: by the complaints to which I have been listening over the past ten minutes, that what is going to be the inevitable consequence of the privatisation of British Gas is that British Gas is going to do too well.
I am suspicious, too, but in the nicest possible way, of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said about compartmentalisation. With respect to the noble Lord—who, I know, knows a great deal more about this subject than I do—surely what the Government are trying to do with the gas industry in this Bill is the very opposite of compartmentalisation. Privatisation is going to be one of the ways in which energy can be

921
opened up to competition between the different fuels. At any rate, we believe that this is the right way to secure the national interest without imposing bureaucratic controls on the operation of the market.
We have all rather spoken at large at the end of today's debate on this particular amendment. May I end by saying something specific? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, finished his remarks by talking about gas depletion policy. The objective of the Government is to try to promote the maximum economic development of our gas resources, and at present about 75 per cent. of our requirements in gas are supplied from the United Kingdom continental shelf. By the mid-1990s this is likely to increase to over 90 per cent. If I may say so, I think that is desirable.
However, noble Lords with experience of these matters—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not least—will know better than I do that the rate at which gasfields are developed depends on a number of factors: the rate at which licences are issued, the speed with which oil companies pursue the exploration and appraisal of fields and the demand for gas. The Government believe that it is right to let market forces determine these questions rather than to impose again some arbitrary or over-regulated framework which could rapidly lead to the kinds of problems which occurred in the United States in the 1970s, when over-control of prices for gas at the well-head led to massive shortages of supplies.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for perhaps having spoken with some asperity; but, really, to have thrown at us at the end of a long debate, having been told for three days that this Bill is not much good and ought to be viewed with suspicion, that the trouble with the Bill is that British Gas is going to do too well, is a little more than I can take.
Viscount Hanworth: I do not think that the noble Lord has really appreciated the spirit in which this amendment has been put forward. He has not really answered anything. I do not mean to be unkind, but in certain ways it is what one might almost call a political speech. Nobody has suggested that there should be a rigid framework or that the Government should rush in. The powers are there only in case they have to be used. The noble Lord has not addressed the point that the CEGB has to take coal at an enormous price, when it could go out and buy it much cheaper. All that he has not appreciated at all, and I earnestly ask him to go back and have a look at what we were trying to say to him, because he simply has not addressed himself to a problem which is going to arise. He has just rather cheaply—and I am afraid I must say "cheaply"—argued that British Gas is going to do too well.
That is not the point at all. We are talking about certain areas which may possibly need protection. The Government know perfectly well that they never would allow, and never have allowed, the three fuels to get right out of step, because what happens?—you change from gas to oil, and all the rest of it. That is not what a government want to happen. So I most earnestly ask the noble Lord to take this matter back and next time get a somewhat better brief which gives the reasons he is really against it rather than make a whole lot of cheap points. I am sorry: I do not mean to be rude, but that is what they were.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I do not honestly think that my noble friend has grasped the essence of the argument, if I may say so. He talks about the operation of competition, but we are talking here about competition which is something like tethering a goat. We have not been told under what rules the goat will be tethered. I am bound to say to my noble friend that he has not really enlightened us one whit about that in connection with these amendments.
Lord Ezra: I must say that I too was somewhat concerned about the cavalier manner in which the noble Lord spoke on this subject. After all, we are having a very serious debate, and when we raise matters of fundamental energy policy and express concern about what could happen as a result of the major change which is contemplated in this Bill, we expect at least to have a serious response from the other side of the Committee.
11 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must say that I was surprised that the noble Lord should say what he did and in the tone that he used. He does not usually speak with asperity, and I am surprised that he should have chosen this particular amendment on which to use asperity, because this is virtually a non-political amendment.
It is an amendment concerned with the proper use of our energy resources. The noble Lord said that we were afraid that the gas industry, when privatised, would do too well. What we are concerned about is not that it will do too well, but that it will act badly against other energy industries. What we are seeking to find out—and what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, is seeking to find out—is what the Government are proposing to do to see that British Gas plc does not act badly against other energy industries which will be under constraints different from those of the gas industry.
The noble Lord also talked abut the missing ingredient. He wanted us to tell him how we were proposing it should be done. We are proposing how it should be done in the amendment. But the only reason we have had to put down an amendment of this sort is that the Government have brought this Bill forward. The amendment would not be necessary if we did not have this Bill, because the energy industries—the coal industry, the electricity industry and the gas industry—would all be in public control and therefore, presumably, even under this Government, working within the public interest.
What we will be left with is the coal industry and the electricity industry under public control, and the gas industry with access to premium fuel in private ownership. That is where the imbalance will lie. The amendment seeks to correct what could be an imbalance and an improper use by the privatised British Gas plc of the monopoly power which is being given to it under this Bill.
I hope that I and other noble Lords have made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, what this is all about and that we are serious about it. It is a matter which concerns not only the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the SDP, but noble Lords on all sides of the

923
Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will take that on board. It is rather too late to go into a very long discussion about the matter, but I assure the noble Lord that we shall have to come back to it. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, unless the noble Lord has anything else to add, though I think perhaps it would be better if he did not add anything. Perhaps he ought to think about it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 5, leave out (", so far as it is economical to do so,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment suggests that the words,
"so far as it is economical to do so",
should be omitted. I can explain very briefly indeed the reason for this amendment. It is felt that the words "all reasonable demands" in the clause are sufficient protection without including as well the words,
"so far as it is economical to do so".
We feel that persons who under this clause are authorised to supply gas through pipes should make all the efforts they reasonably can to meet the demand; in other words, they should meet "all reasonable demands". To include the words,
"so far as it is economical to do so"
gives them a further let-out which we do not think should be provided. After all, those who are authorised to supply gas under this provision will be put in a pretty strong market position and they should have certain obligations, among which should be the obligation to meet "all reasonable demands". I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: At this late hour I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to speak to the next amendment, Amendment No. 39, which appears on the Marshalled List in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and myself. While Amendment No. 38, which has just been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is not exactly the same as Amendment No. 39, the general thrust of the two amendments is not dissimilar, though I think the amendment in the names of the other two noble Lords and myself—indeed, I do not think; I am fairly certain—goes somewhat further, and I believe necessarily so.
In the Second Reading debate I expressed concern over the question of new pipeline development in less populated areas. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said then that he would write to me, and indeed he did. He did so most promptly. He provided me with information on the recent decision to extend the pipeline network in the north of England. He said that Alston, with a population of 1,950 souls, Appleby with a population of 2,400, Kirkby Stephen with a population of 1,550 and Stanhope with a population of 2,400 had been considered too isolated to have a natural gas supply. However, he went on to say that new engineering techniques and the increasing costs of maintaining butane air supplies have led to a reevaluation and that over a period of three years these
924
communities are to receive natural gas. I was of course very pleased to learn of this. Nevertheless this decision is a specific example of the difficulty. It is an example of the fear of many of us who live in the regions; I live in Scotland. The fear is that this decision might have gone the other way had the public gas supplier been already in the private sector.
We have to consider that the current terms of the Bill on extension of the pipeline network, particularly in Clause 4(1)(a), qualified as it is by the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, wishes to delete, do not allow regulation of the public interest in any certain way. It would be ridiculous to propose—and I indicated this in my remarks at Second Reading—that every village and hamlet should have a gas supply. That sort of obligation, so far as electricity supply is concerned, is already placed on the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board, but that body, as I know from my experience as its chairman for some years, has the cost advantage of hydro power with which it can feed such an obligation. Nonetheless some residual responsibility for less populated areas should be imposed on the gas industry. That is my view and that is the purpose behind Amendment No. 39 and in some measure the purpose behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The privatised gas company will have to have primary regard to the interests of its shareholders in arriving at the decision to supply remoter communities, such as the communities which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been telling me in his letter have just been or are about to be linked up. That regard may be served by allocating annual budgets for pipeline extensions. In an expanding gas industry it is at least arguable that there is bound to be pressure of demand from time to time with more project applications than budgets will allow. My fear is that in the allocating of priorities less populated areas will be given a lower ranking. That is the instinct of an executive. There is little doubt about it. Consequently, there will be geographical discrimination between potential customers. I add for the Committee's consideration that, as I read the Bill, it provides only for non-discrimination for existing customers at Clause 9(2) and at Clause 10(1). It is very much how one interprets the Bill at that point which determines how one might see the future for remoter areas.
In the light of what I have been saying, Amendment No. 39 is suggesting as a solution to the problem that there should be a published formula that states the circumstances under which an extension to the pipeline system would be economical. I accept that the formula would of course have to change from time to time. Indeed, the director could adopt a flexible formula, and probably he should do, if he is a skilled executive.
I make one last point. I am not convinced from my own experience in government—admittedly a decade or so ago—that such a formula is not lying around somewhere, and that a Minister could not tell me something about it. I believe that any skilled Civil Service machine would consider that this type of amendment was at least a possibility.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for speaking to his Amendment

925
No. 39 along with Amendment No. 38 at this late hour, and I shall be happy to deal with the points raised on them both.
The noble Lord proposes in Amendment No. 38 to delete the qualifying words,
"so far as it is economical to do so",
from the main supply duty on the Secretary of State and director. Those words have been a feature of legislation since gas nationalisation in 1948, and provide the proper qualification for a general supply duty. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that it would be a nonsense to give the director and the Secretary of State the duty to secure that all demands should be met, irrespective of their individual circumstances and the economics of giving a supply.
I believe that the points to which the noble Lord was referring can be dealt with more effectively when we reach Clause 10, because that clause spells out in greater detail the obligation on public suppliers.
Lord Ezra: The only point I want to make is that I did not suggest at all that the gas industry should have to meet all requirements. The wording that I specifically said should be left in was "all reasonable requirements".
Lord Gray of Contin: I accept the correction that the noble Lord has rightly made. But perhaps he agrees with me that there will be an opportunity when we reach Clause 10 to examine in more detail the obligations upon public suppliers that are spelt out there.
I turn to Amendment No. 39, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, spoke. I recognise the importance that the noble Lord attaches to this subject and I acknowledge his experience both as a Minister and as a distinguished chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board some years ago. I refer again to Clause 10 of the Bill, which we shall have an opportunity to debate at a later stage, which extends the obligation in existing legislation by requiring a public gas supplier to give and to continue to give a supply of up to 25,000 therms a year, not just to premises within 25 yards of a distribution main but to any premises that are already connected to the main by a service pipe.
Clause 9 of the Bill provides that it is the duty of a public gas supplier to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply. These are substantial obligations and are the clear intention of the Government's determination that the gas industry should extend its network so far as possible, provided that it is economic. Indeed, it is in British Gas's commercial interests to expand its business or for other suppliers to take up the opportunities, if they are unable to do so.
The regulatory system which we are setting up under the Bill provides for the enforcement by the director of the supply obligations set out in Clauses 9 and 10. I do not believe it would be possible to be specific about the application of the Clause 9 duty in relation to a hypothetical development or that a formula could be developed to cover all circumstances. The director, in the exercise of his enforcement duty under Clause 28, will be able if necessary to form a judgment as to
926
whether a particular request should have been satisfied by a public gas supplier under the duty set out in Clause 9. It follows therefore that a duty on the Secretary of State and the director, as proposed in the noble Lord's amendment, would in our view be inappropriate. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord if he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: I had not moved my amendment; I was just speaking to it.
Lord Ezra: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I wish to withdraw the amendment that I proposed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("secure that such persons are able") and insert ("have regard to the ability of such persons").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 39A. This refers to paragraph (b) of Clause 4 which says, in considering the duties of the Secretary of State and the director:
"without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, to secure that such persons are able to finance the provision of gas supply services.".
This lays the responsibility on the Secretary of State and the director to see to it that in exercising his functions he secures that the persons who are authorised to carry out these duties are able to finance the provision of gas supply services. What the amendment draws attention to is the strength of the words "secure that such persons are able", and suggests in their place "have regard to the liabilty of such persons".
The reason behind the amendment is I am sure very plain. As it is drafted at the moment, the gas supply will have what I might call a cushion for incompetence and inefficiency in the knowledge that the Secretary of State and the director have been required to "secure", which is a word very near to "guarantee". They have been required to secure that he is able to finance the provision of gas supply services. Clearly that does not mean only at the moment of the grant of the permission, but it means for all time. Therefore it means that the director and the Secretary of State have to see to it that the supply of gas is carried on in such a way that no matter what inefficiencies there are, there will be a sufficient profit to enable the supplier of gas to finance all his requirements, be they small current requirements or be they large capital requirements. I imagine that is not what is intended by the Government; but that is what the clause says, by using such a strong word as "securing" that such persons are able to finance the provision.
I quite accept the view that such persons should not be irresponsible, clearly; and I have suggested that the director and the Secretary of State should have regard to the ability of such persons to provide the necessary finance, both immediately and in the future, and that that would be a proper protection. But I think that the present wording goes much too far in the way of almost guaranteeing—I know that the word is not

927
"guarantee" but it means much the same thing—that no matter what happens they will be assured of permission for such a pricing policy and securing such a margin of profit that they will for all time be able, as the Bill says, to finance the provision of gas supply services.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept that what we are trying to do is remove a cushion for inefficiency and replace it with words which I should have thought carry out the intention of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My notes indicate that Amendment No. 39B is grouped with Amendment No. 39A. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of noble Lords if I dealt with it in my reply.
Lord Diamond: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me about that. I did not mention it but I said that my argument refers not only to financing immediately but financing in the future; and equally it refers to financing not only from internal sources but also from external sources.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. Perhaps it would assist if I explained what the purpose of Clause 4(1)(b) is and how it relates to Clause 4(1)(a). The latter requires the Secretary of State and the director to exercise their functions under Part I of the Bill in the manner each considers best calculated to secure the satisfaction of all reasonable demands for gas. Clause 4(1)(b) requires the Secretary of State and the director to exercise their functions in the manner each considers best calculated to secure that persons authorised to supply gas through pipes are able to finance their supply operations. The second duty is of equal importance to the first.
The words proposed in the first amendment would weaken the duty on the Secretary of State and the director since they would only have to have regard rather than secure the financial viability of gas suppliers. There would be no benefit to consumers if the regulatory functions were exercised in such a way that gas suppliers were driven into bankruptcy.
The second amendment seeks to define the source of financing. Clearly the terms of British Gas's authorisation will exert some influence over the extent of finance generated by the business itself, but British Gas will, like all private sector companies, wish to take advantage of favourable sources of external finance in developing its business. However, these matters are irrelevant to the overall exercise of regulatory functions and need no expression in Clause 4.
I hope I have demonstrated that the proposed amendments are not necessary, and perhaps the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw them.
Lord Diamond: I am afraid that the noble Lord, although courteous as usual, has not devoted his mind to the argument at all. He certainly has not persuaded us. We want to make as much progress as we can on the Bill. We are moving our amendments, so far as we do move them, and are not withdrawing them (we have withdrawn many amendments and Motions on
928
clause stand part) but we are under the difficulty that no progress is made with the Bill as a whole, including all the future stages of the Bill, if we do not get satisfactory replies during the Committee stage.
I well understand the Minister's desire to deal with a matter shortly, but dealing with it shortly and dealing with it properly can be contradictory. Having listened to the quite unusual, untypical and uncharacteristic outburst from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead (who up to that moment was sweet reasonableness itself and then proceeded through a misunderstanding, not giving himself time to understand the purport of an amendment, to speak with what he himself described as acerbity) I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is perhaps pressing Members of the Committee on this side too hard, and that now is the time really to consider how far the Government want to go tonight in the consideration of this Bill. Therefore I hope there will be some response in that regard.
In so far as concerns the amendment, I have made it absolutely clear that we make no progress on the whole discussion of the Bill if we merely have to transfer arguments from the Committee stage to the Report stage. If it helps the Government to see some superficial progress, I shall gladly seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but on the clear understanding that we shall have to come back at a later stage to this and previous amendments which have been dealt with totally inadequately.
Lord Gray of Contin: I certainly would not in any way wish to suggest that we were not giving full consideration to what was being said, even at this late hour. I am sure we would all agree that we were a little slow during the first two days of our deliberations and perhaps it is not unreasonable that we should try to make up a little of that time now. It is really not all that late yet and I think that we are all feeling quite fresh; it seems a pity not to make a little progress, if we can.
Perhaps I may supplement a little what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. In Clause 4(1)(b) the object is to secure that suppliers can finance their services. This means only that efficient suppliers can do this and not that inefficient suppliers must be tolerated. The Government therefore share the feelings of the noble Lord that such a cushion should not be given. However, I think that really there is not a great deal between us. When I spoke for the first time and described the objects as I did I thought that I had explained the purpose of Clause 4(1)(b) and also how it related to Clause 4(1)(a). I think the noble Lord is perhaps being a little unfair in suggesting that I treated his amendment with less than sincerity or depth, and I feel that when he reads the Official Report he will find that I genuinely tried to deal with the points which he had raised. If I did not succeed, I certainly apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Diamond: I think the Minister has said something relevant to the amendment that I moved. He said that there would be a cushion if it enabled inefficient suppliers to carry on their business. But I do not see anywhere in this clause—and I do not know where else it is in the Bill—that the Secretary of State and the director have the powers to prevent this kind

929
of inefficiency. This is a direct encouragement to inefficiency. As the noble Lord has said that inefficient suppliers could not avail themselves of this cushion, I should be grateful if he would tell me on what part of the Bill he rests that argument.
Lord Gray of Contin: Well, I cannot deal with that point immediately, but perhaps I can return to it, if the noble Lord cares to withdraw his amendment and we move on. When I have the information I shall certainly make it available to him. Lo and behold the information seems to have arrived from the Box, and I can now impart it to the noble Lord. The efficiency duty is set out in Clause 4(2)(b).
Lord Diamond: There is a reference to efficiency. We shall consider that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me that information. In those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39B and 40 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 40A.
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall not permit the supply of gas for use for industrial purposes which does not consist of or include the use of a fuel of the gas except in so far as it is required to provide heat or other energy required—

(a) for a process in which the gas is used otherwise than as a fuel or

(b) where such a process is one of a series, for any further process in the same series, not being a process in which a bulk product is converted into manufactured articles;

and in determining whether any industrial purposes are as mentioned in this subsection, the use of any gas derived otherwise than as a by-product from the gas shall be treated as the use of that gas.
For the purposes of the above subsection, the Secretary of State and Director shall require from the suppliers of gas for industrial purposes, periodically or on request, information with respect to the type of gas supplied and the use of the gas supplied.".)
The noble Lord said: Again, this is an important issue but it is late at night and I shall deal with it as quickly as I can. The Committee will recognise that Section 29 of the Gas Act 1972 gives British Gas special privileges to monitor the use of gas for purposes other than for fuel. It ensures that as far as possible gas is used as a premium fuel. I mentioned that earlier this evening. As I understand it, the meaning of the phrase "premium fuel" is that it should be used in those cases where another fuel cannot be easily substituted. Clause 3 of the Bill abolishes that special privilege which the BGC at present has. I suppose that under the Bill that is the only course of action the Government can take, but it is a pity that they are taking any action at all.
However, in abolishing Section 29 of the 1972 Act the Bill also ends any power of control over the use of gas. I believe that that is unwise. Since gas is a premium fuel and is due to run out in about the year 2030, we should conserve it and use it very wisely indeed.
Let me give an example of where it would be absurd to use gas other than as a premium fuel. If, for example, the gas industry were to be allowed to permit
930
electricity generation by gas, that would be an awful waste of the fuel. It would be a waste of gas for this reason. If it is burnt directly in a boiler, I suppose the overall efficiency will be in the region of 85 per cent. If, on the other hand, the gas is used in a power station boiler, overall thermal efficiency in a power station of modern design and probably with a 660W generator would be somewhere in the region of 37 to 38 per cent. Less than half the available energy, therefore, would be achieved from burning gas in a power station compared with its being burnt directly. That is what the amendment is intended to deal with. Such a use of gas would be most unfortunate.
In the Bill the Government are losing all means to ensure that gas is used as a premium fuel. The Bill having ended the BGC's role as an agent of energy policy, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State to take on that role. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: One of the Government's aims in privatising British Gas is to create an environment where market forces can control and shape the nature of the industry within the overall framework of regulations set out in the Bill. That is one of the keynotes of the Government's approach to energy issues generally. We do not accept the Opposition's belief that Ministers and civil servants can sit down and work out a grand plan in which all the industries are allocated a role and that all they have to do is to carry it out according to the rules laid down. Real life is not like that.
Noble Lords opposite have experienced that in government before. They have found that these grand plans do not work out as envisaged. Such an approach completely fails to recognise the need for business and individuals to make up their own minds about the best kind of fuel for their needs, and for the industries to go into the marketplace and sell their products in the way that they know best. The imposition of a duty as proposed in the amendment is completely contrary to the Government's approach. It has no place in this Bill nor within the Government's overall approach to the energy industries.
I know that noble Lords are attached to these ideas. I would invite them to learn from the Government's example and to see that privatisation itself is one of the ways in which energy is being opened up to free competition between the different fuels. There is a different philosophy here. I know that the noble Lord will not agree with that. I do not suppose that he wants me to labour the point at this late hour. We could argue about it for a long time. I have tried to explain to the noble Lord as clearly as I can why it is not possible for me to accept the amendment, and perhaps he will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall withdraw it, but not because the noble Lord has given me a satisfactory answer, I assure him. The noble Lord says that the real world is not like the sort of world that we propose in the amendment. But, in fact, a satisfactory energy world is the sort that I have described. I had hoped that the noble Lord would deal specifically with the point that I raised about power stations. Does he agree, especially in Energy Efficiency Year, that it is right that gas, a premium fuel, should be burnt in a way that

931
would extract only 50 per cent. of its potential heat content, throwing the other 50 per cent. into the atmosphere? Of course, if used in combined heat and power, it is a different matter. That would achieve, I suppose, an overall efficiency of between 60 and 65 per cent.
I should like the noble Lord to say whether he really believes that what I have described is an efficient use of fuel and whether, in Energy Efficiency Year, the Government or the Energy Efficiency Office would advise that this was reasonable. Of course not! Those within the office are not daft: they know that this is an absurd way to use a premium fuel. What is to stop the gas industry going to the electricity supply industry and saying, "You are buying coal at £45 a tonne. You have a few gas-fired stations anyway, and you can easily convert. We will sell you gas at the equivalent coal price of £30 a tonne"? Is the noble Lord really saying that this will be pemitted? Or will he say to the electricity industry, "You cannot do that. We will not allow you to buy gas from British Gas plc"? In that case, the Government's argument about the free market in fuels goes by the board.
The noble Lord has to answer this question. Although gas may be plentiful at present and although more gas is being found, the fact is that over a period of time it will diminish and deplete. It is a premium fuel; it is a superb fuel. It is probably the best fuel that we have. It should not be wasted. I hope that the noble Lord will deal with the question seriously, and answer the point specifically about the electricity supply industry.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord knows the Government's commitment to energy efficiency. It has been widely publicised and widely practised. The noble Lord cited combined heat and power as an example of high efficiency use of gas. The Government fully accept this but believe that the market will be a better guide to the best use of gas rather than the kind of administrative rule which the noble Lord suggests.
I shall not become involved in a long debate about the most efficient form of power generation in our power stations. But we have only to look at what has happened in France, where something approaching 80 per cent. of the generation of electricity in power stations is now from nuclear power. Indeed it has been so successful that the CEGB is buying power from France because it is cheaper than the best available to it. That is the market working in practice. We believe that in the long term and the short term the market place will sort out these problems more efficiently than administrative rules such as those the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is not good enough. The noble Lord has not answered my question about the electricity supply industry. It would suit the electricity supply industry to build a gas-fired power station. I shall tell the noble Lord why it would suit it, provided that the price of gas was right. The capital cost would be considerably reduced because it would not have to build storage capacity for coal. Nor would it have to build a coal-handling plant. Therefore straightaway it would be able to build a coal-fired
932
station at a lower capital cost. Then it would be able to take a piped supply of gas. That would mean that it would need fewer people to handle the coal and the ash. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows what I am talking about.
It could very well suit the CEGB to take gas provided they were allowed to do so. I repeat this because it seems that in this instance I have to teach the noble Lord something. They then take a premium fuel which can be burnt in a proper boiler at 85 per cent. overall efficiency. They burn it in a power station, and they reduce the overall efficiency to 37 per cent. or 38 per cent., and throw the rest through a chimney. That is not good energy conservation. It is an absurd and disgraceful waste of a premium energy fuel. The noble Lord owes the Committee an answer to that question. Are the Government, or are they not, going to say to the CEGB, "You may not use premium fuel in this way. You shall not burn gas to convert heat from gas into electricity"? That is the first question.
The noble Lord also mentioned France and nuclear power. He should not have mentioned that tonight because I have to tell the noble Lord that if there is one accident in a nuclear reactor in France public opinion will close down the whole nuclear industry in France. Of course, if the wind is in the wrong direction we shall get a counter-blast as well. We shall suffer the effects over here, particularly in Kent. I wish that the noble Lord would not keep on citing France as a great nuclear power which is producing electricity at very low cost. It is a highly subsidised cost, if I may say so. We are getting the benefit through the Channel link at the moment, but it may very well be that in due time we shall even regret having built that link. However, I ask the noble Lord to deal with the point about burning gas in electricity power stations.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord is being extremely unfair. He is being unfair to other fuels. He is highlighting gas. The noble Lord does not say to me, "Is it realistic, is the best way to move forward to burn coal in power stations?" There are those who would argue that to burn coal in power stations is contributing a degree of pollution which could well be avoided. Therefore, the noble Lord has a personal prejudice against nuclear power. I have heard him talk on energy subjects for a sufficient length of time for me to detect that he has an inbuilt prejudice against nuclear power.
I used the French case purely because, in terms of economics, the French have proved that their nuclear power system is working efficiently, effectively and in a highly competitive manner. I shall not be drawn into the argument about gas. I have already given the noble Lord the answer; it is not the one he wants, but I have given it. So far as concerns gas, the marketplace will determine. British Gas has no problem in disposing of the gas available to it; nor is there a problem in the foreseeable future. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any more of an answer than that.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord was well trained in another place in stone-walling, and he has stone-walled very well tonight—I will give him credit for that. However, he has a bit of a cheek to talk to me

933
about nuclear power. I did not even mention nuclear power when I opened this debate. It was the noble Lord who brought France and their pressurised water reactors into the debate. Therefore, I do not know why he suddenly attacks me on nuclear power when we are talking about gas and the use of gas as a premium or a non-premium fuel. However, I can see that I shall not get anywhere with the noble Lord tonight. It is an important subject. We shall most certainly return to it at the Report stage; but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40B and 40C not moved.]
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert ("with particular attention to the protection of consumers of gas from unfair discrimination on a regional or geographical basis").
The noble Lord said: The words in the amendment speak for themselves. I suspect that the Government themselves desire that there should not be unfair discrimination on a regional or geographical basis. If it is already provided for, that will dispose of the matter. I shall not go further than that at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The amendment seeks to amend one of the subsidiary duties of the Secretary of State and director so as to require them to protect consumers from unfair discrimination on a regional or geographical basis. The Bill already contains substantial protections for such consumers. The primary duty of the Secretary of State and the director under Clause 4(1)(a) is to secure the satisfaction of all reasonable demands for gas in Great Britain, so far as it is economical to do so. That duty applies just as much to a demand for gas in the regions as it does to a demand for gas in London. Under Clause 9(1)(b) public gas suppliers are also obliged to comply, if it is economical to do so, with any reasonable request for a supply of gas to any premises. Clause 9(2) goes on to impose a further duty on public gas suppliers to avoid any undue preference in the supply of gas to persons entitled to a supply under Clause 10.
All of the provisions to which I have referred are enforceable by the director exercising his powers under Clause 28 of the Bill. Moreover, under Clause 31 a disappointed or aggrieved customer can make representations to the director who would have to make a judgment, for example, as to whether the refusal to give a supply, or the terms under which one had been offered, was justified on economic grounds. If he comes to the conclusion that it was not, he is under a duty to make an order against the public gas supplier requiring it to give the supply, and if the public gas supplier does not comply with that order, any person suffering loss or damage as a result can bring an action for damages against the public gas supplier.
We believe that the Bill before the Committee already provides substantial protection against unfair discrimination and that the mechanisms exist to deal with it, should it arise. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord's amendment is not necessary and perhaps he will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Diamond: I hesitate before speaking because there is another name attached to this amendment and I did not wish to prevent full discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. He has given me the very information that I sought. I shall consider it very carefully in relation to the references to the various clauses when I see it in Hansard. I can only repeat my gratitude and seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) to protect the interests of consumers in relation to the purchase, installation and servicing of gas appliances ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 42 refers to Clause 4(2)(a) to (d). This clause and its subsection protects consumers as to prices, ensures continuity of supply, has something to say about the quality of gas and also seeks to promote efficiency on the part of suppliers; it guards against risk to the public from dangers during the transmission or distribution of gas through pipes. But it has nothing to say about safety in the use of gas in the home.
The amendment asks that the use of gas through appliances comes under statutory protection. It seeks to ensure that the appliances manufactured, sold and fitted adhere to certain standards and that the Secretary of State and the director would have the duty to enforce those standards.
Recent displays by the Society of British Gas Manufacturers, which were held in the other place, showed imported cookers with parts that melted on contact with heat, cookers which had no heat resistance, and so on. These need to be controlled. Similarly, certain types of gas water heaters are so inadequately designed that they have caused death by carbon monoxide poisoning. Recent television programmes have illustrated some of these.
Turning to installations, inadequately or badly installed gas appliances can kill. While Clause 18 of the Bill details some of the safety standards to be put on the use of gas, it seems appropriate to indicate in the general duties of the Secretary of State and the director that they must not only be concerned with gas safety when it enters the premises, but when it is used in premises. That is the object of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is on to an important point here, but I think it is covered by existing arrangements. The new Gas Consumers Council has been set up specifically to provide effective protection for consumer interests. As I think the noble Lord will be well aware, the new Clause 33 makes it clear and explicit that the new council will be responsible for protecting consumer interests by investigating complaints across a whole range of matters, including those itemised in this amendment.
Then there is the whole question of the sale and marketing of appliances. They are already under the eye of the Director General of Fair Trading and all retailers are subject to the existing competition and fair trading legislation. We propose that this situation should continue whereby the MMC and the OFT can take action to ensure that with regard to these areas the interests of consumers are fully protected.

935
Finally there is the area which the noble Lord put some emphasis on, the safety of appliances and that proper standards of safety should be observed. Here the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for appliance safety, is currently preparing regulations under the Consumer Safety Act 1978 to ensure that all gas cookers, whether they are made at home or overseas, and whether they are new or secondhand, should meet the relevant safety requirements of the existing British Standards Institute standard. It is hoped to introduce these regulations at the beginning of next year. As to installation and servicing, the Health and Safety Commission has approved a draft code of practice on standards of training for gas installers. That was published yesterday. I think I can venture to suggest that when this Bill becomes law standards relating to appliances are going to be higher and tighter than they have been before. I hope that the noble Lord may therefore feel that the amendment truly is covered.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry that the noble Lord has not taken this on board. The noble Lord has referred to the various powers conferred under Clauses 31, 32 and 33. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that these are investigatory powers; they are not enforcement powers. The noble Lord knows quite well that the only powers that can be enforced are those enforceable by the Director General of Ofgas, and that the Gas Consumer Council has no such powers. If the noble Lord will kindly specify where under Clause 31, 32 or 33 the Gas Consumer Council itself can compel, I shall be very much obliged. But I do not think that the noble Lord can do so.
What the noble Lord is really saying, as a "Little Sir Echo" to his noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, is that, once again, free market forces will ensure that the best possible apparatus will in fact be circulated, that ultimately consumer choice will prevail, that money power will prevail, and that people will tend to buy only the safer items. I observed, I must say, that the noble Lord very heavily qualified his remarks about safety by saying that the Department of Trade and Industry was considering introducing new regulations next year. Since I have been looking after the affairs on this side of the Committee in regard to the Department of Trade and Industry, I have dealt with some regulations. I know perfectly well what they mean. They mean in many cases that, come a year's time, certain wholesalers or certain retailers will be compelled to do certain things. But in the meantime they are under a code of practice.
The noble Lord really cannot get away with this kind of thing. He is extremely plausible about it and says that, even under these new arrangements, it will be much safer, and everything else. He knows that that is a lot of nonsense. He knows that the only way effectively to ensure that the matters in this Amendment No. 42 are dealt with is by powers being given to the director himself. This Committee and the country can take note of the fact that he has declined to do so. The rest, so far as he is concerned, so far as the Government are concerned, is wishful thinking.
Lord Belstead: Very briefly (because people do read the Official Report of your Lordships'
936
proceedings) I think it is important that I should say to the noble Lord that, with respect, anybody who reads his speech could feel that standards, so far as appliances are concerned—and that means the appliances which are used by ordinary people every day—will be lower, and therefore there is reason, because of this Bill, to be worried. I sought to go through the three main areas which there are to show that standards will be higher. So far as complaints are concerned, the Gas Consumers Council is specifically enjoined under Clause 33 to be able to investigate complaints—
Lord Bruce of Donington: To investigate?
Lord Belstead: That is quite right. So far as the sale and marketing of appliances is concerned, this is already under the eye of the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and that is a situation which is going to continue. So far as the enormously important matter of the actual standards of the machinery is concerned, particularly imported machinery, it is not a question of wishful thinking so far as the Department of Trade and Industry is concerned. They are currently preparing regulations which they will introduce for all gas cookers, whether they are made at home or overseas.
I really would ask the noble Lord to accept that standards of safety relating to appliances are going to be tighter and are going to be higher as a result of this Bill. I think it is important that that should be said so that consumers and customers can be assured it is so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: It is important also that the doubts should be voiced.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the answer he has given us. In view of that and in view of the assurance he has offered us, particularly about the proposal to ensure standards of safety of the appliances by the Department of Trade and Industry—which I think was the main thrust of a recent television programme on the subject—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 midnight
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(" (b) to promote energy efficiency and economy on the part of persons authorised by or under this Part of this Act to supply gas, and in particular to ensure that in acquiring gas supplies, the principle of least cost resource acquisition is observed;").
The noble Lord said: I should like to move this amendment in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. There are in effect two issues raised by this series of amendments. One concerns the question of energy efficiency, which we feel should be strengthened in the references made to it in this Bill. Secondly, there is the question of the principle of least cost resource acquisition. I should like to deal with that first.
This principle is well known in the regulation of public utilities in the United States. What it does is to ensure, by means of the regulatory authority, that the utility company acquires the resources that it exploits

937
at the least cost. This is particularly relevant having regard to the tariff price formula, which allows for the cost of the resource to be reflected in the price. That being so, it is a corollary, it seems to us, that the resource cost should be the lowest possible so that the resultant price should be the lowest possible; and we believe that it is a proper obligation to put on the Secretary of State and the director under this clause to ensure that that is done. That is the principle of least cost resource acquisition.
There has been much debate about the question of energy efficiency during the passage of this Bill through the other place.Much reference was made to it in this Chamber during the Second Reading. These are quite modest and moderate amendments which seek to ensure that the question of energy efficiency is dealt with more effectively in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to speak to this group of amendments and support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has just said about least cost resource. We do not actually have to go over to the United States, because we have a Select Committee on Energy in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will remember that they carried out an investigation and made a report on conservation. This was just one of the problems which they investigated, and what they found was that the country could save money through not having to build a power station by embarking upon an energy conservation programme.
We do not actually have to go to the United States for proof of this: our own Select Committee in another place investigated it and found exactly the same. It is a concept which ought to be taken note of and acted upon because, as we on this side have said so many times, energy and energy sources are scarce, they will get scarcer as the years go on and we need to conserve them.
Even in 1986, Energy Efficiency Year, which was sponsored not by the Opposition but by the Government, it seems necessary to stress the importance of energy saving to the nation. The Government's stated aim is to reduce the nation's fuel bill by some £7,000 million putting Britain at the top of the international league for energy efficiency. That is entirely laudable and is marvellous. In those circumstances, I should have hoped they would support our amendments tonight, because they help them to do just that.
Energy efficiency benefits all consumers. Householders have lower bills and greater comfort, while business and commerce cut their energy costs, maintaining international competitiveness and increasing their profits without cutting manpower. I could be Peter Walker speaking. That is just the sort of thing he is on about. That is precisely what he is exhorting us to do. So again I ask noble Lords opposite whether they are going to accept our amendments, because we want to help them and we are in tune with the Secretary of State for Energy.
However, despite their public spirited espousal of the benefits of energy saving, the fuel suppliers are all competing to increase market share and sales. Gas is already leading the market share in every sector and is approaching saturation point in the domestic sector,
938
yet they have projected a further growth in sales of 15·6 per cent. over the next four years. This further growth can come from only two sources: from taking market share from still nationalised and regulated competitors or from growth in energy sales. If British Gas is privatised in an unregulated fashion, as the Gas Bill presently proposes, there seems to be no restraint upon their intention to increase sales at the expense of the electricity and coal industries—industries which are still restrained by their public ownership.
The Government's policy on depletion is to extract gas from the North Sea and sell it as quickly as possible. A better return on capital employed by the BGC and any other private gas supplier may be obtained by compelling British Gas to undertake a thorough energy conservation programme, rather than rushing ahead with the increasingly expensive exploitation of gas fields. In Energy Efficiency Year, the opportunity must surely be grasped to ensure that a privatised gas industry actually undertakes such a conservation programme.
Why should energy utilities promote energy saving? As well as having a general duty to ensure that consumers are given information and assistance to allow them to use their energy as efficiently as possible, utilities are a very logical choice to promote energy saving schemes. British Gas has contact with all gas consumers, has the manpower and infrastructure and, moreover, the self-interest of ensuring that consumers use their fuel efficiently. However, experience and the stated expansionist aims of British Gas suggest that the privatised company will be more concerned with expanding its empire and sales, than with helping consumers to lower their onerous fuel bills.
In the United States, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred, where many utilities actively and comprehensively promote energy saving, it is undeniably the case that they have done so at the behest of their regulators. But of course our regulator will not be able to do that. To quote from Lessons from America—which the noble Lord has undoubtedly seen—"The Regulation of Gas and Electric Utilities in the USA", which was published by the Association for the Conservation of Energy,
"It is an unrealistic approach to human nature to expect supply orientated, engineering dominated, utilities and their personnel to change their attitudes for demand reduction without some outside impetus. This impetus has come, in many cases, from Public Utility Commissions."
However, a second lesson which we can draw from this experience is that gas and electricity supplies, once having embarked on a programme of energy saving at the aegis of their regulators, rapidly appreciate the benefits of such a programme not only for their consumers, but also for their shareholders. That ought to appeal to the noble Lord, if nothing else does.
The following quotation from a brochure of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company illustrates this point:
"PG&E has been offering customers conservation and alternative energy options since the mid-seventies. These programmes help our customers regain control over the energy bills and help the company control its costs of doing business."
Pacific Gas and Electric offers its residential consumers rebates or no interest loans for energy saving measures, with free installation for those on low incomes. Industrial and commercial energy saving is

939
promoted by a wide range of incentives. As the executive vice-president of the company stated in 1984:
"Our priority … is to continue to invest in conservation and load management. These programmes have been very effective and are expected to continue to be so in the future … These programmes are considerably less expensive than the cost of adding new capacity and are clearly less risky from an investment perspective".
That is the experience from the United States, the greatest capitalist country in the world and where competition is the order of the day. But where monopoly is the case, regulation, and strict regulation, is also the order of the day.
Why on earth do our Government not adopt the same approach? It has been successful in the United States. It has been successful for the consumer, it has been successful for the companies and it has been successful for the shareholders. We have seen that. We believe that our Government have a lot to learn. We are giving them the opportunity in this group of amendments to show that they care about long-term energy conservation. I hope that they will take it either by accepting our amendments or by saying that they accept our arguments and will come forward with their own amendments in due course.
Lord Belstead: The first of the three amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, centred upon the principle of least cost resource acquisition. As may be remembered, this was strongly resisted for good reasons in another place when it was discussed. This requirement would extend the director's field of action upstream and into the vetting of the purchase price of British Gas. The Government are clear that this is not appropriate. British Gas has every incentive to purchase its gas supplies cheaply since it is in competition with other fuels and energy sources. Indeed, as my right honourable friend commented in giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy, if the director of Ofgas could assess better than British Gas what gas purchases the company should be making, the director should really be the chairman of British Gas.
Moreover, a major aim of privatisation is to free British Gas from bureaucratic influence wherever possible. This amendment would bring Ofgas into the area of British Gas's detailed management in an unnecessary way. If the Committee will forgive me for saying so, I am not attracted by the constant references to the United States. My advice is that in the United States the over-control of prices in the 1970s led to massive shortages in supply.
Amendment No. 44 would require British Gas to have an energy saving programme monitored by the director and my right honourable friend. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was generous in what he said about the £7 billion of savings that are being made in the great energy saving campaign at the present time. That is so and is all backed up by British Gas's considerable R & D effort for all sectors.
12.15 a.m.
I would only add that the requirement in Amendment No. 44 to have a programme that clearly British Gas already has would not add very much to
940
the strong commitment to energy efficiency. To the extent necessary, the Department of Energy and its Energy Efficiency Office keep in touch with British Gas, and I would not have thought there was any necessity to add to that.
Then there is Amendment No. 45, which would require my right honourable friend and the Ofgas director to promote the efficient use of gas by means of advocacy and advice, and for the director to provide financial assistance. Again, all those functions are carried out by the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency Office over a much wider field than just gas use. In addition, the Ofgas director already has the power to provide information and advice on efficiency of gas use to tariff consumers under Clause 34.
The Government are by no means without sympathy for the intention of the amendments, although we believe they are covered by ways that are more suitable. One point that I ought to make is that if the amendments were to be pressed they would be, with respect, in the wrong place. I do not want to split hairs, but Clause 4, which we are on at the moment, deals with the duties, whereas the functions of my right honourable friend and the director are set out later in the Bill. However, there will be further opportunity for debate on this particular matter, as on many other matters, when we reach Clause 9. For the moment, I do not think that this is the right place for the amendments, apart from the fact that the Government would not wish to accept them.
Lord Ezra: In view of the fact that the Minister has said that this matter might more appropriately be dealt with under Clause 9, that is something we must obviously take into account. However, I shall comment on the Minister's remarks concerning the principle of least cost resource acquisition.
It is not correct to say that that would be putting the director in the position of running the British gas industry. It would be ensuring that the price formula was properly operated. If the British gas industry was not going to be in a virtual monopoly position vis-à-vis the domestic consumer, and therefore necessitate having a tariff price formula that is meant accurately to reflect the cost of producing the gas in the first place and of acquiring it in the first place, then it would not be necessary to make the proposition about least cost resource acquisition.
That being so, we on this side of the Committee are very disturbed that the proposal is being dismissed so readily. I wish that the Government would at least take it away and think about it. There is a real problem here. The tariff is, in a sense, a cost-plus tariff, and what worries us is if there is no obligation of any sort to acquire least cost resource. The Sleipner gas incident is a case in question. Had it been acquired and developed, and had the price been much higher under the contract than for alternative sources, then the consumer, under the tariff arrangement proposed in this Bill, would automatically have had to pay for it. We believe that that is something that ought to be safeguarded against in the provisions of the Bill. It may be that the way proposed is not the best, but I wish that the Government would at least think about this issue. There is, as we see it, a real problem here.

941
So far as concerns the energy efficiency side, if the Minister is saying that we can properly raise that matter in Clause 9 and elsewhere in the Bill, then we shall return to it. I am prepared to withdraw the series of amendments, provided we may have some assurance that the question of the resource cost will be considered.
Lord Belstead: If the noble Lord is putting that question to me in the context of the formula for the consumer tariff, because the matter in the forefront of the noble Lord's mind is his concern that the factor in the formula for passing on the cost of gas to the consumer will lead to an unreasonable burden on the consumer, then that is something we must debate when we come to the formula, which we will not do tonight.
I like to think, from what I have managed to discover about the formula, that it will be a very real defence for the consumer against any unreasonable rises in price, but we must debate the formula in order to be able to worry that out. So I think, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, that rather than giving him an undertaking that we will look at least cost resource as a principle, which we do not like on this side of the Committee, perhaps it would be better, if the noble Lord wishes to raise that again, that he should do so. I also suggest that we return to the other aspect of the subject on the tariff formula when we come to it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In relation to the noble Lord's reply on Amendment No. 44, I have no doubt that the present British Gas Corporation are co-operating with his department to a certain degree. I do not know that they have been actual leaders in the field of conservation; certainly I have not noticed it myself. As a customer I have had no approaches from British Gas, and I do not know whether anybody else has had an approach from the corporation, suggesting to me that I should conserve energy and that they would help towards that. Certainly they have not been overanxious to date, but even the co-operation they have been giving to the Government at the present time is as they are presently constituted, as a nationalised industry, as an industry under public control.
What we are concerned about is what will happen when the industry goes under private control, when the Government will have no influence at all on the decison-making powers of British Gas plc. But even when they are under private control, in the national interest we believe that conservation is the right policy. That is what the noble Lord has failed to answer. Bearing in mind that these amendments appear to be in perhaps not the wrong place but not the most desirable place, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will withdraw my amendment, presumably we shall be able to return to it under Clause 9, and no doubt we shall do just that.
Lord Diamond: I am bound to say, very shortly, that though I am most grateful to the Minister for having drawn our attention to areas or clauses in the Bill where discussion of these matters can perhaps more appropriately take place (and for that we are very grateful) it would really be helpful if he himself would
942
take on board in the meantime that we have two major difficulties. Stripped of all complications, there is a cost-plus price formula. A cost-plus means something added on to the cost, and we are talking about the basic cost of gas. That is one problem.
There is the other problem of a conflict between the long-term national interest of gas conservation and the possible short-term profit maximisation interest of a privatised gas supply company to maximise its sales. The national interest must be protected but without special provision it will not be. I hope the Minister will take on board that these are our real anxieties and that we must come back and debate them fully.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Just to amplify that point, if I may, will the noble Lord give the Committee an undertaking that if the appropriate amendments are introduced within what he says is the context—that is, the context of Clause 9—he will not then plead that the amendments have been introduced in the wrong place and that they ought to have been introduced where they were originally?
Lord Belstead: I certainly will not do that, but if we debate the same subject in the same way again on Clause 9, I may give a rather short answer.
Lord Ezra: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 3, line 23, after second ("the") insert ("treatment, storage, liquefaction, conversion to gaseous state,").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4(2)(c) seeks to protect the public from dangers arising from the transmission or distribution of gas through pipes or from the use of gas supplied through pipes. That clause and subsection gives the Secretary of State and the director general the duty to exercise their functions in a way calculated to ensure public safety in only certain areas.
As I said, the Bill currently specifies dangers arising from the transmission or distribution of gas through pipes or from the use of gas supplied through pipes, but this leaves out important elements which are part of the gas supply service processes which BGC currently undertakes and in which any other public gas supplier may become involved; for example, its treatment. Gas is treated in a variety of ways. It is cleaned and odorised, and it may need to be heated or cooled, depending on the use to which it is to be put. It is subject to compression or decompression, again depending on circumstances. In addition, chemicals are added to prevent the drying out of joints in low pressure mains, and thereby to prevent leakage.
As regards storage, liquefaction and conversion to gaseous states, any supplier who is endeavouring to ensure a continuous supply of gas to his customers will need to store gas to ensure cover at peak periods. Storage facilities vary from the traditional gas holders, with their associated environmental and safety problems, to the use of underground natural cavities, which BGC is currently developing on the Yorkshire coast. One important and convenient method of

943
storage involves liquefying gas, either natural gas or butane (which is still used to top up supplies), and storing it at low temperatures in liquid form.
BGC in 1984–85 had seven such liquefied natural gas storage centres in various parts of the country, including one each in Scotland and Wales. These centres have both underground and overground storage facilities. Obviously, when the gas is to be used it has to be converted back to a gaseous state so that it can be transmitted and distributed in the usual way.
There is certainly reference in the licence to safety and to these processes, but liquefaction is specifically excluded from the definition of "transmission system." I think it would be very useful if the noble Lord could comment on what I have said and on the amendment, because it is puzzling that in the Bill the transmission and distribution of gas is the only process mentioned. I think the noble Lord will agree that these other processes are indeed potentially dangerous. Therefore, we need some reassurance on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has raised a very important point concerning safety, but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that all the aspects mentioned in his amendment are covered by existing legislation—the Factories Act 1961 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Under the latter of those two Acts, two sets of relevant regulations have been made. These are, first, the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984, which oblige persons carrying out such activities to identify major accident hazards, to take steps to prevent or limit the consequences of any major accident, to report any such accident to the Health and Safety Executive, and to provide emergency plans and inform the public of the nature of the hazard, the safety measures and the correct behaviour that should be adopted if an accident occurs; and, secondly, the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982, which oblige suppliers to notify the Health and Safety Executive of existing sites where specified quantities of gas are present on site.
I believe that it is right that these operations should be subject to the direct control of the Health and Safety Executive, and in the light of the explanation that I have just given I hope that the noble Lord will feel that in other legislation the matters that he has raised in his important amendment are in fact covered.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes; I thank the noble Lord for the information that he has just given. I accept that regulations exist which deal with the subjects that I have mentioned, but there are two points which I should like to put to the Minister. Certainly one of them was raised in another place during the Committee stage of the Bill, and it concerns the adequacy of the staff of the Health and Safety Executive to deal with these problems, particularly when British Gas is privatised. Whether we like it or not, a publicly-owned industry is more responsive because it is under public control and subject to public
944
pressure. Therefore, we are concerned that the Health and Safety Executive should have adequate staff to be able to deal with the privatised corporation. Apparently it is short of staff.
The other puzzling matter is that the Government in one respect make themselves responsible—and quite rightly so—for certain safety aspects, so it looks rather odd when other aspects of the gas industry are excluded. Perhaps the Minister would like to think about this point and see whether it would be helpful if the Secretary of State or the director had a general oversight, not only of transmission and distribution but of these other responsibilities as well. That would give a certain amount of reassurance. However, I accept absolutely that these matters are covered in other Acts.
Lord Belstead: So far as concerns the second point, that is of course indeed the case, though I should just like to look at what the noble Lord has said on that particular aspect. As regards the first point put to me by the noble Lord, the Health and Safety Executive is recruiting inspectors and proposes to increase its effort in respect of gas safety matters by over 60 per cent. The fact of the matter, as I think the noble Lord knows, is that the Health and Safety Executive numbers reached a low point in 1984. There has since been a recovery, and recruitment is taking place at the present time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) for the purposes of paragraph (c) above, to promote the advancement of the skills of the person employed by any persons authorised to supply gas by or under this Part by monitoring the provision by such persons of facilities for and access to training and education;").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I should like to move this amendment. It is intended to support the objectives of Clause 4(2)(c) by promoting training of the personnel involved in this safety work. I therefore think it is self-explanatory, and I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can assure the noble Lord that there is no difference between us on the importance of training. The Government believe that this is important for all employees, though clearly there is an additional spur where the safety of the public is closely connected with the activities of the employees.
I am therefore glad to be able to reassure the noble Lord that expression has already been given to his concern in Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which places a duty on all employers to provide information, instruction, training and supervision to their employees, and to conduct their business in such a way as to ensure that persons who are not in their employment are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. With that explanation and the assurance that the matter that the noble Lord has raised is already covered, I hope that he will be satisfied.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Can the noble Lord give the Committee the categorical assurance—and I mean categorical—that the provisions of the Act to which he refers specially cover:
"the advancement of the skills of the person employed by any persons authorised to supply gas by or under this Part by monitoring the provision by such persons of facilities for and access to training and education"?
Will he give the Committee the specific undertaking that those highly specialised matters that are referred to in detail in words that are very clear in the amendment are covered?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I cannot give the assurance that the noble Lord seeks that the wording of the 1974 Act is exactly the same as that in the amendment. However, if he were to look at Section 2 of the Act, I think he would find that in principle the matters covered are the same.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Will the noble Lord read out the section so that we may be informed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: At the risk of taking a little of the Committee's time, it states:
"It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of an employer's duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular—

(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;

(b) arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances."

I come to the most important part:
(c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees".
I think that that covers the point that the noble Lord was asking.
Lord Ezra: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) to ensure that the gas supplier maintains proper services for the elderly and disabled including the checking of all domestic gas appliances free of charge.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Stallard, I beg to move Amendment No. 46A standing in his name. This is an amendment designed to give quite definite preferential treatment to certain categories—namely, the elderly and the disabled—first of all, in the matter of maintaining proper services to these categories and, secondly, including the checking free of charge of all domestic gas appliances which they may have.
That may seem a fairly sweeping proposal, and I think that it is. Nevertheless, having regard to the profitability of British Gas in its present guise and its likely profitability when it becomes a public company, I think that even at some cost to profits this is a service that might be offered to people who at best may be
946
forgetful and at worst may be of such limited means as not to be able to afford proper servicing of their appliances. In addition, if these appliances are neglected and people are living in proximity to other tenants, there is a possiblity of danger and even injury to such other tenants.
For those reasons, it seems to us that this amendment is worthy of consideration and I beg to move it.
Lord Belstead: I have listened to what the noble Lord said. He will be aware that British Gas has already made it clear that it will be continuing its free safety checks for the elderly and disabled and will continue the existing disconnection code. In addition, it provides a variety of services to help elderly and disabled people from special adaptions to cookers to free information and advice through home service advisers. The interests of the disabled would also be of particular concern to the Gas Consumers Council which will have at least one member with experience in that area.
There was, however, another aspect to the remarks of the noble Lord. The amendment imposes a duty in relation to a particular supplier. With respect, that is not, I believe, really appropriate. If a duty was to be imposed, it would have to be for public gas suppliers generally. One could not simply lay it on a single supplier. Moreover, the director and the Secretary of State can consider the needs of the elderly and disabled in exercising their duty at Clause 4(2)(a) where they have to protect the interests of consumers of gas generally.
Having said that and having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, there may be a point here about publicising special services for the elderly and disabled. In the light of this short exchange, I should like to take that point away, think about it and see whether we can perhaps come back with something that makes it clear that services for elderly and disabled people should be publicised so that those concerned will know that the services exist. I hope that this may go some way towards what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said in moving the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: While the noble Lord is taking it away and giving it his consideration, for which we are very grateful, will he also give consideration to the extent that the undertakings and practice of a nationalised corporation can be binding on the successor company that is an entirely different and private organisation?
Lord Belstead: I am not entirely sure that those who are interested in the welfare of elderly and disabled people would want existing services cast in stone for evermore. It is much more likely that they would want to see services improved as time goes on. I shall certainly look at the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, puts. I hope however, that he will accept that we should always be in a moving situation in respect of people who need particular help and not try to cast in stone the state of services previously. Nonetheless, I have said that I will look at the publication side. I shall certainly look, at the same time, at what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said.
Lord Gallacher: In view of the promise that the noble Lord the Minister has given about wider publicity for existing services and the assurance that he has given my noble friend Lord Bruce about the future, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46B not moved.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) to ensure that due account is taken of the operations of British manufacturers and suppliers in the procurement policy relating to plant, equipment and appliances of a public gas supplier and to monitor the buying policies of such suppliers in this regard.")
The noble Lord said: This raises a point that was dealt with at some length during our debates on BritishTelecom. It was pointed out and not seriously contested by the Government that up to the time that it was privatised, it was the policy of BritishTelecom, wherever possible, to make its purchases of equipment, material and the rest from British manufacturers. Indeed, the statement was made and not contested that some 95 per cent. of BritishTelecom requirements were supplied by British manufacturers.
I do not need to remind the Committee that under modern conditions companies are very interdependent. The amount of sub-contract and cross-supply operations that goes on in this country occupies a significant proportion of the country's total economy. Therefore a reduction in the percentage of required purchases not only of material and equipment but also of services—a decline in the demand placed by a monopoly industry, normally made upon British manufacturers—can produce very adverse economic circumstances within the country. Indeed it can be shown, though this is not the time of night to show it, that it is precisely the opening of quite large sectors of economy to free competition in other countries differently placed and with labour rates at about 30 per cent. of those obtaining in Western Europe and under conditions sometimes of semi-dictatorship which has resulted in a very considerable decline and has accounted in part for the decline in British manufacturing capacity and has led to an increase in unemployment in the manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
With regard to British Telecom, when the measure was going through this Chamber, at the time noble Lords were assured by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that so far as he was aware it would be the policy of the new privatised company to continue the same kind of policies which had been pursued when British Telecom was a public corporation. He did not commit himself; he could not. But he certainly gave the Chamber the impression that that was going to be the case.
12.45 a.m.
In the case of the successor company, when the company is privatised, if it is going to follow the policies that have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin—who as usual washes his hands with the observation that it will all be up to the
948
consumer; it will all be free competition, and this is the best way of regulating the market—then I predict that the new privatised company will seek its supplies from overseas, so far as is possible. In the case of some of these countries—particularly the newly industrialised countries—much of the equipment can be made more cheaply due to the factors which I have described. This would be in sharp contrast with the policies pursued by the very large concerns in other countries in the world. Japan ensures that she is well protected in her own purchases, as does France and Germany. It is only we who—under circumstances of uneven world development, uneven wages structures and uneven political structures which accentuate economic differences—endeavour to throw the market open.
With the experience of British Telecom over the past couple of years, during which there has been a decline in the proportion of British manufactures used by British Telecom, I should have thought that on this occasion the Government might stick in an oar for British manufacturers. It is not unreasonable to ask in the national interest that the Government follow the same path which most other countries of the world—including some very prosperous ones—follow for the protection of their own industries.
I sincerely hope that suitably chastened by what has happened in British Telecom, the Government at least have the decency to afford some protection to British industry by accepting this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to the points raised by the noble Lord. I have to tell him that British Gas has a most excellent record at the moment in buying British goods.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, yes!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: If the noble Lord will allow me to continue my theme, one example of this is their development of the Rough field. The investment in Rough totals some £700 million. Of that about 85 per cent. has been spent with UK companies. This is a massive project and a massive amount of money and a huge benefit and compliment to British industry who won the contracts in the face of stiff worldwide competition. So there was no case of protectionism when those contracts were awarded. This track record is proof that British industry can compete effectively with the rest of the world.
Members of the Committee do not need reminding that one of the cornerstones of the Government's philosophy is to create a sound economic base in this country so that real growth and industrial development can take place. I am sure that those aims will be shared by noble Lords opposite. However, I do not accept that this amendment would advance these aims. British Gas is being privatised so that it can maximise its efficiency, be released from artificial and bureaucratic constraints and face the more realistic disciplines and pressures of the private sector. This Committee knows it is our belief that this will be good for the consumer and for the industry. British Gas's success in the past has depended to a considerable extent on its purchasing policy, and it has been crucial that it made use of the best quality and most reasonably priced goods on the market.

949
Its general record in purchasing from British firms has been as excellent as that in the North Sea. Nothing in the Bill changes that. I am confident that so long as British industry continues to maintain its high standards, its record of success in winning contracts from British Gas will also continue. I cannot accept that it would be helpful for the director or the Secretary of State to have the extra function.
I would, however, point the noble Lord a little further forward in the Bill to the effect of Clause 34, subsection (1) of which requires the director to keep under review activities connected with the supply of gas through pipes. This has deliberately been drafted widely so that the director may keep under review matters such as gas production, appliances and so on, even though he has no specific functions. The latter part of the amendment is therefore already provided for, so far as the director needs to keep those matters under review.
Finally, perhaps the main reason that I cannot accept this amendment this evening is that such a specific focus on British products would be contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. For the reasons that I have given, I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wonder whether the noble Lord could reflect on one or two points that he has made in his reply. In the United States of America the Buy America Act is very influential, indeed predominent, in the purchasing policy of utilities. It was not very long ago that one of the Texan utilities tried to buy a transformer from outside the United States. It was effectively not allowed to do so and was required to go to Westinghouse for its transformer.
Perhaps the noble Lord would also reflect on the Japanese situation, where Japanese utilities are simply not authorised to buy equipment from outside Japan. Perhaps he would also reflect on the French situation where, apart from Westinghouse licences, which are in existence for the nuclear power programme and other electricity generation, French equipment is more or less mandatory for all utilities. Perhaps he would also pay attention to the German situation where, although there is an official disincentive to the purchase of foreign equipment, it so happens that German utilities always buy equipment made by German manufacturers.
I believe that if the noble Lord reflects on these points he will come to the conclusion that in our legislation if we are to privatise this major monopoly we must ensure that its purchasing policies reflect what, after all, is only common practice among our industrial competitors. When noble Lords opposite talk about the free market, I think that they must recognise that there are constraints in other countries. In this amendment we are simply asking that these constraints should be operated here. It does not seem to me that that is a very serious condition to insert into the Bill.
As we all recognise, we have a problem of industrial reconstruction in this country. One of the ways in which many noble Lords have suggested that we reconstruct our manufacturing industry is by the use of public expenditure in the purchase of British-made
950
products. If we are now to allow a major utility to purchase quite freely from the world market—from Japan, America, France or wherever it may be—it seems to me that we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage which other countries do not have, and I believe that the noble Lord would do well to reconsider his position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I followed the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, particularly when he mentioned Germany. He said that although the utilities were under no obligation to purchase German goods, they invariably did so. I was glad they did so othewise they might perhaps be caught by Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. That does not apply to Japan and the United States.
What I have said so far is that British Gas at the moment buys a very great deal from UK suppliers. It does not because it is forced to do so but because UK suppliers have managed to produce the goods of the quality and in the face of worldwide competition. I see no reason why that should not continue. Having said that, I point the noble Lord, as I said earlier, to the duty of the director, which is outlined further on in Clause 34; but I cannot accept that we can fly in the face of the Treaty of Rome and put such an amendment on the face of the Bill.
12.57 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 12.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Bruce of Donington, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

1.4 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees: As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided, and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

Bromborough Dock Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Alcoholics Anonymous (Dispositions) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes past one o'clock.

  NHS CONTRACTS: IN-HOUSE STAFF TENDERING
  NHS CONTRACTS: IN-HOUSE STAFF TENDERING
  COMMUNITY NURSING REVIEW: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  COMMUNITY NURSING REVIEW: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  REVIEW OF VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: REPORT
  REVIEW OF VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: REPORT
  GUATEMALA: RELATIONS WITH UK
  GUATEMALA: RELATIONS WITH UK
  CROWN AGENTS: 1985 REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
  CROWN AGENTS: 1985 REPORT AND ACCOUNTS
  AVIATION AND SDI INFORMATION: MAGAZINE REPORT
  AVIATION AND SDI INFORMATION: MAGAZINE REPORT
  EMERGENCY POWERS: NEED FOR LEGISLATION
  EMERGENCY POWERS: NEED FOR LEGISLATION
  ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT: DISCUSSIONS
  ANGLO-IRISH AGREEMENT: DISCUSSIONS
  OPEN UNIVERSITY: APPLICATION STATISTICS
  OPEN UNIVERSITY: APPLICATION STATISTICS