Sitting of 13 May 1986

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    GULL ISLAND PROTECTION BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
    IPSWICH PORT AUTHORITY BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    United States Bases
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons from United States bases in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons by the United States from United Kingdom bases.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 7 May:
    "Under the Churchill-Truman arrangements, there are no circumstances in which American aircraft based in this country may be used without our consent in military operations planned by the United States."—[Official Report, 7 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 132.]
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his answer, the confidence of British people in consultations between ourselves and Washington has been severely shattered by the way in which our bases were used for the attack on Libya? Does he agree that the very least for which we can ask is more consultation in future, and, better still, no use of NATO bases for non-NATO purposes?
    Mr. Younger: That is a somewhat surprising question, because, while there is plenty of room for controversy about all aspects of this matter, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that the consultation procedure is satisfactory and has worked extremely well.
    Mrs. Clwyd: In view of the Secretary of State's answer and the Government's total subservience to the United States Government, will he tell us to what extent the arrangements involve the use of Britain as a strategic base for the Americans in the event of another attack in which the Americans are the principal belligerents?
    Mr. Younger: The answer has been made clear many times. If there were to be any further request from the United States for any further such action, it would be an entirely new request and would have to be considered afresh by my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the remarks of Opposition Members and confirm that the arrangements were found perfectly satisfactory by preceding Governments—not only Conservative, but Labour?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, the original agreement was negotiated with the Americans by a Labour Government under Mr. Attlee.
    Mr. Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the use of bases, such as Upper Heyford, will always be a decision for both Governments and that nothing has changed? Will he further confirm that that has been the position in the past and will be the position in future? Is that not the safeguard that has protected us for many years past and will do so for many years to come?
    Mr. Younger: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. The arrangements have been perfectly satisfactory, and we have no intention of changing them.
    Mr. Foulkes: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the same arrangements apply for missiles fired from United States submarines sailing out of United Kingdom bases?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, the same arrangements apply to all bases.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more than a certain offensiveness about the suggestion that American forces—which, as a nation, by heart and resolve, are valiant allies—are somehow or other the enemies of our freedom? Without the Americans, what freedom would we have in the Western world?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. It is quite clear that the defence of this country depends entirly upon defending it in conjunction with our allies, and our principal ally in the NATO Alliance is the United States. It is our closest ally by a long way.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons are no different from those for the use of chemical weapons? As the Government seem to be determined next week, or the week after, to allow binary chemical bombs to be established at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, will he confirm that the rules regarding the use of those bombs will be no different from those regarding the bombs used to attack Libya?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think that that arises, because there are no chemical weapons stored in the United Kingdom and we have no intention of agreeing to chemical weapons being stored here by the United States. Obviously, if it were to ask us to do so, the matter would have to be considered.

    Strategic Defence Initiative
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the progress of strategic defence initiative research.
    Mr. Younger: Progress of SDI research as a whole is a matter for the United States Government.
    Mr. Wardell: In view of the leaking of the memorandum of understanding on SDI between the West German Government and the United States Government, will the Secretary of State now publish the agreement between the British and American Governments before it is also leaked?
    Mr. Younger: The details of the memorandum of understanding between the British and United States Governments contain confidential matters which it would not be appropriate to publish. However, I have by arrangement, on a classified basis, supplied the details of the memorandum to the Defence Select Committee, which I hope it will find helpful.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a little concern about his initial answer? As I understand it, my right hon. Friend's predecessor and Mr. Weinberger took a particular and detailed interest in the agreement to ensure effective implementation. In the light of agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel, does my right hon. Friend feel that it is a matter of urgency that some progress can be demonstrated to those who follow these matters?
    Mr. Younger: It is certainly desirable that progress can be demonstrated in our participation in the SDI research programme. All memorandums of understanding are not necessarily the same. For classified reasons, it would not be appropriate to publish ours.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State say whether the classification is based on commercial or defence reasons, or both? If it is only for defence reasons, when will we know the commercial background to these matters, and who will control the outcome of the research—us or the Pentagon?
    Mr. Younger: There are both commercial and defence reasons for the confidentiality, so it would not be proper to publish the memorandum of understanding. However, I hope that the House will find it an acceptable compromise for the Defence Select Committee to see the memorandum on a classified basis.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet Union has been exploring this area for many years, that if we had not taken part in the initiative nothing would have stopped the United States from creaming off some of our brightest and best academics to participate, and that, through our participation, we may be able to influence the important decision whether this important initiative is implemented in due course?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had decided not to take any part in this purely research programme it would have continued regardless, without any participation by British companies. Indeed, there would have been considerable danger that skilled British technicians would have had to emigrate to America to participate, and that would not have been in our interests in any respect.

    Nuclear Testing
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Defence what need there is for nuclear testing by or on behalf of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Younger: The United Kingdom requires to carry out nuclear tests in order to maintain the effectiveness of its nuclear defence capabilities.
    Mr. Lloyd: Given the evidence from the Chernobyl disaster and the effects of radiation, even at low radiation yields equivalent to a 1 kilotonne bomb, can the Secretary of State tell us whether Britain's interests would be better served by guaranteeing that our missiles are sent on a day when the wind is in the right direction, or by moving towards a verifiable test ban treaty, which we now know is possible?
    Mr. Younger: The Government's policy is to work in every way possible for a comprehensive test ban treaty. The principal obstacle to a treaty being concluded now is the absence of any effective verification procedures. I do not think that there is any connection with the Chernobyl disaster other than that.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear warheads come in a wide range of sizes, with the ability to cause equally wide-ranging devastation, and that they can also be fitted to a variety of different delivery systems? Does he further agree that, to bring together the right warheads with the right delivery systems to meet the changing needs of our defence requirements, it is essential that continuing testing goes on while the opposite side are doing the same?
    Mr. Younger: We all wish that a way can be found, as soon as possible, of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether, but, while they are there, testing is essential for safety and operational reasons. The Government's policy is to do everything possible to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as verification can be made credible.
    Mr. Strang: Is not the Government's assertion that verification procedures and techniques are not yet available rejected by leading scientists, not only in the Soviet Union and the United States, but here? Does not his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) make it clear that, far from wanting a comprehensive test ban treaty, the Government simply pay lip-service to that objective, while their real objective is to continue nuclear testing to develop new nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Younger: I do not accept any of that. One can find scientists in this country who will say that verification can be achieved, and others who say the opposite. The advice that is given to me is that verification is very far from being 100 per cent. effective, or even acceptable in its present state. We must do all that we can to encourage the Soviet Union to agree further measures on verification, so that we can make progress.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that while Polaris and Trident are American delivery vessels, the warheads are British and, if they are to work, they must be tested?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. While these weapons exist and we have them, for all these reasons we must test them from time to time. However, none of that is against our ultimate aim of having a comprehensive test ban treaty.
    Mr. Wallace: Is not the Secretary of State's last answer the key to it—that verification is put up only as a thin excuse, which is not even accepted in many parts of the United States Government, for not progressing towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is not the development of the Trident warhead stopping Britain from taking advantage of its unique position to take initiatives in seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty?
    Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman thinks a little further about this matter, he will appreciate that a comprehensive test ban treaty, or any test ban treaty, which it was not possible to be absolutely certain that we could verify, would be worth nothing and would be an extremely dangerous measure for us to embark upon.
    Mr. Shersby: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to carry out atmospheric tests with nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Younger: There is no change in our normal policy on nuclear tests, and we do not make advance announcements of when and where they will take place.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's first answer was the correct one. He made it clear that the Government will not agree to a comprehensive ban treaty because that would deny the effectiveness that the Government require. Why does he not come clean and make it clear that it is nothing to do with verification or safety, but that, to get Trident, the Government must test the warheads?
    Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is clear that a test ban treaty, or a test ban, without credible means of verification is not worth anything, and it would be an extremely dangerous course on which to embark. I hope that, whatever other disagreements we may have on this difficult subject, we can at least agree that if we are to have a test ban, we must have adequate verification first.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to increase the take-up places under the YTS scheme by persons for whom his Department is responsible: and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces outlined steps being taken to encourage armed services YTS recruitment in his answer to questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 15 April, at columns 712–13.
    Mr. Colvin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that 2,700 youngsters have done armed services YTS, and 60 per cent. are staying on for regular service in the armed forces. Nevertheless, only about a quarter of the ASYTS places are being taken up. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will tell us what he proposes to do to promote YTS in the armed forces to a greater extent, perhaps through a cadet corps, particularly now that, with the introduction of the two-year YTS, greater training facilities will be available in particular qualifications for City and Guilds?
    Mr. Lee: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. We shall consider his specific suggestions. We continue to promote the scheme actively through visits by service school liaison officers, several thousand such visits are planned this year, and there will be a new range of publicity material. There are some pleasing aspects. Of the participants in armed forces YTS about 60 per cent. have gone on to regular engagements. On the civilian YTS, approximately 70 per cent. have gone on to full apprenticeships with us.
    Mr. Douglas: We welcome the fact that there are new entrants in the services in the lower echelons, but what is happening to the attrition rate in the higher echelons? We seem to be losing highly skilled personnel, especially from the Royal Navy. Is that loss related to the lack of ordering of new classes of vessels, especially the types 22 and 23? When will orders be placed to suit the services so that we can keep our highly skilled personnel?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is an extremely skilled parliamentarian. His specific question on frigates comes somewhat lower on the Order Paper. This early question does not really relate to the question on YTS.
    Mr. Conway: Are those who do not convert from these schemes to regular service given information that may lead them to enlist in the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Lee: I am not aware whether they are given specific information about possible engagement in the Territorial Army. I shall certainly look into that specific suggestion.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Would not popularisation of YTS ensure that those who participated in it could, if they wished, join the armed forces afterwards?
    Mr. Lee: I shall certainly take up that point.

    Space-launched Weapons (Soviet Union)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the most up-to-date information available to him about progress by the Soviet Union's research and development programme for space-launched weapons systems.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I refer my hon. Friend to the paper that I have placed in the Library entitled "The Soviet Ballistic Missile Defence Programme". I refer my hon. Friend also to the United States Government's assessment in "Soviet Military Power 1986," a copy of which is also in the Library.
    The Soviet Union has a long-standing and broadly based research and development programme relevant to space-based weapons systems and is the only country to have already deployed an anti-satellite weapons system.
    Mr. Chapman: In the light of that reply, does my right hon. Friend not regard it as the height of hypocrisy for the Soviet Union's leadership to condemn the United States strategic defence initiative research programme as destabilising? If we are to have verifiable, balanced, multilateral disarmament, which we all want, is it not incumbent on the Soviet Union to come clean and be open and honest about its own star wars programme?
    Mr. Stanley: I certainly agree that there is no basis on which the Soviet Union can criticise the United States for

    545
    an extensive research programme on ballistic missile defence, because the Soviet Union has been engaged on such a programme since the 1960s. The Soviet Union possesses and is upgrading around Moscow the world's only system of active anti-ballistic missile defences, which employs nuclear-tipped missiles capable of destroying targets beyond the atmosphere. It has an operational anti-satellite system, and it is conducting substantial programmes on advanced technologies relevant to ballistic missile defence, including high-powered lasers, kinetic energy and particle beam weapons and heavy-lift space launchers. In fact, since 1976 the Soviet Union has conducted more than twice as many launches as the rest of the world put together, 80 per cent. of them military in nature.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Taking account of the Soviet Union's space and science budget, most of which is devoted to military purposes, such as research and development into strategic defence systems, is not the overall military capability of the Soviet Union much greater than one would estimate, judging by those defence expenditure figures which are made public?
    Mr. Stanley: The Soviet Union certainly has an enormous research and development programme. Over a long period it has carried out a major research programme into the possibility of a strategic defence system.
    Mr. James Lamond: If we know as much as that about the Soviet Union's space research programme, is it not surprising that we claim we cannot verify whether the Soviet Union is testing nuclear bombs?
    Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that scientifically that is a quite different proposition.

    Aish and Company, Poole
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the question of Mr. Jim Smith and Aish and Company of Poole in the past month.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) recently raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I have written to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that I have spent the past 12 months investigating the affair of Mr. Jim Smith and Aish and Company? The conclusion that I draw is that officials at the Ministry of Defence have deliberately misled Ministers as to the effectiveness of post costing arrangements within the Ministry of Defence? They know that it was Mr. Smith who found the excess profits being charged by Aish and Company. When the report of the Public Accounts Committee is produced in two weeks, will the Minister take it home and read it in detail, follow its recommendations, and make a statement to the House?
    Mr. Lamont: I have not spent the past year researching this subject, as has the hon. Gentleman, but it sometimes feels as though I have spent the last year preparing for the hon. Gentleman's questions on this matter. I take seriously what he says. However, I fail to follow what motive he thinks Ministry of Defence officials would have in denying things which he believes to be true. I cannot understand
    546
    that motive. Of course I shall look at the Public Accounts Committee's report, and I shall be interested to see whether there is any evidence to cause us to change our conclusions.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if the allocated number of cruise missiles to be placed in the United Kingdom has now been completed.
    Mr. Stanley: Information on the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom is provided in the "Annual Statement on the Defence Estimates." I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 320 of the 1986 Estimates, which were published yesterday, which indicates that the deployment of 96 cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common has been completed. Deployment of the remaining 64 missiles at RAF Molesworth is not due to be completed until 1988.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise the depth of worry in this country about cruise missiles? Is he aware that the vast majority of the British people are against them, especially in the atmosphere of worry about nuclear issues generally? Is it not a fact that a wave of horror went through this country when the Prime Minister took a personal decision about the bombing of Libya, without consulting even the Foreign Minister or the Cabinet, and that a deep worry about cruise missiles now pervades this country?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the recent events in Libya had nothing to do with INF missiles. I think that more people in this country are worried about the scale of the continued programme of deployment of long-range INF missiles by the Soviet Union. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when NATO initially took its twin-track decision on the deployment of INF missiles, the Soviet Union had 693 long-range INF warheads facing west—Europe—and it has already increased that number to 922, which are now deployed. I believe that the scale of that programme is the biggest single concern among the British people.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Cambridgeshire, far from being worried about Government policy on the location of cruise missiles there, at last Thursday's local elections the Conservatives won four seats from the Liberals and two from Labour?
    Mr. Stanley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the results that he achieved in his constituency, which all Conservative Members will be seeking to emulate next May.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the more pleasing features about recent events in relation to cruise missiles has been that members of cruise watch have been able to harry the movements of those cruise missiles to a greater extent than ever before? Of course, we would like them to be even more successful. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn the tactics used by those who are driving the missile carriers in thier attempts to frustrate the peaceful efforts of those who are standing up for the majority in Britain, especially after the Libyan bombing?
    Mr. Stanley: I note the hon. Gentleman's support for the protesters on the public highway, but I am afraid that

    547
    I have to disappoint him. The programme of exercises for ground-launched cruise missiles is continuing very well and is not being disrupted by the protesters.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Government and Warsaw Pact powers made an immense propaganda effort to prevent those missiles being based in the West? The programme has gone forward, and all of us in the West feel much happier for that reason.
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that it is not a coincidence that the fact that the NATO countries have gone ahead with their deployment option on INF missiles has, for the first time, brought the Soviet Union back to the INF negotiating table. I hope that it will provide a means of bringing about a fair and equitable arms control agreement in relation to those nuclear missiles.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister confirm that at the time of the United States raid on Libya, cruise missiles were placed on amber alert? Were the Government consulted before that took place?
    Mr. Stanley: There was no change at all in nuclear alert states at that time.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-nuclear lobby asserted that the deployment of cruise in the United Kingdom and Europe would wreck any chance of arms reduction talks? Does he agree that the opposite has happened? Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's continuing commitment to a mutual, balanced, and verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Stanley: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I shall most certainly restate that commitment to an equitable, verifiable arms control agreement in INF and elsewhere. The pattern of the INF negotiations has once again brought out the old adage that the Soviet Union is prepared to negotiate on arms control provided that we are negotiating from a position of some strength.

    Laser-guided Weapons
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has undertaken any research into the accuracy of laser-guided weapons.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Marek: If the Government have undertaken research into the accuracy of weapons that will be deployed if the SDI ever comes to fruition, can the Minister give any guarantees that the United States will not simply use this country for the technology that is available here and then use that technology without paying the proper price for it? What guarantees can the Minister give the House that that will not happen?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman seems to be jumping from laser-guided weapons to the SDI agreement. We have made it clear to the House on many occasions that the memorandum of understanding that we have signed with the United States Government protects our own intellectual property rights and safeguards our freedom to exploit the fruits of British research in British companies. We are wholly satisfied on the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

    United States Air Force (Bases)
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Air Force stations are currently used as bases by the United States air force.
    Mr. Stanley: The USAF's main operating bases in the United Kingdom are at the following seven RAF stations: Alconbury, Bentwaters, Fairford, Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Upper Heyford and Woodbridge. The USAF makes use of other RAF bases and facilities elsewhere.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those United States bases make a substantial contribution to the defence of this country, and that the removal of those bases, as advocated by the Labour party, and the replacement of that cover by the Royal Air Force, would place an intolerable burden on the defence budget?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the United States presence in this country, including the USAF presence, is an integral part of Western Europe's deterrent, which is faced by the Soviet Union. I also agree that the Labour party's commitment to make the Americans remove their bases from this country is one of the most damaging attacks on NATO, and one of the most damaging defence policies that has ever been adopted by any British political party.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister not accept that there is increasing concern among the public living around all the RAF bases used by the USAF, and also in areas over which Fl 1 1s and other United States aircraft fly in their training role? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for a review of low-level flying throughout the United Kingdom? Did he read the remarks of Henry Kissinger in the press recently, where he argued for a withdrawal of F1lls to the USA?
    Mr. Stanley: With regard to the final part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it remains our view, and it remains the view of the United States Administration, that the forward American deployment in western Europe is integral to the defence of western Europe. Low flying is a separate issue. It is subject to special rules that we have laid down. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular complaints in relation to his own constituency, we shall of course look at them.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the presence of United States' bases in Britain, and specifically the nuclear element, has played a key role in maintaining the peace and freedom of western Europe over the past 35 years? Is there not a real possibility that in the event of the implementation of either a Liberal or Socialist defence policy of getting rid of American cruise missiles and nuclear weapons from British soil, that could lead to the withdrawal of all US bases from this country, which would precipitate the disintegration of the NATO Alliance?
    Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that if the official Opposition were able to implement the policies to which they are committed there would be profound reverberations throughout NATO and profound damage to NATO. The striking contrast between the defence position in Europe now compared with 50 years ago is that 30 years ago the Americans had withdrawn to the other side of the Atlantic. Today, the forward defence position of the

    549
    United States is seen to be inside western Europe, and that is why we can look forward with much greater confidence to continuing peace than our predecessors did in the 1930s.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If NATO, in a few weeks' time, agree, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Defence, to establish binary chemical bombs in Britain, at which of the bases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will they be located?
    Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman was in the House when we dealt with a private notice question on that matter a few days ago. We made it clear then that we are considering the adoption or otherwise of a NATO force goal. I made it clear in answer to questions then that there were no plans by the United States to make any deployment of chemical weapons outside the United States in peace time.
    Mr. Powley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the important strategic defence presence of American bases in this country, there is an important economic factor in that presence for East Anglia and other areas? Does my right hon. Friend accept that if American bases were thrown out of this country there would be a serious economic loss? Jobs would be lost in East Anglia, in my constituency, as a result of any implemention of the Labour party's initiative on this issue.
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that United States' forces in the United Kingdom are estimated to spend more than £600 million a year on goods and services, and that they sustain, directly or indirectly, some 30,000 jobs. I am sure that that fact will not be lost on the electorate of East Anglia or on the voters in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that his constituents will give him the same support at the next general election as they gave at the last one.

    Military Bases (Red Alert)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during the past 20 years bases of armed forces in the United Kingdom have been put on red alert other than for non-emergency practice purposes.
    Mr. Stanley: As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on 12 April 1984, there has been no warning of an imminent attack on the United Kingdom since 1945, nor have British or allied forces in this country been deployed to react to one.
    Mr. Wigley: Can the Minister confirm that American forces based in the United Kingdom may be put on red or amber alert without prior notification or consultation with the United Kingdom Government?
    Mr. Stanley: It has been made clear, not least by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that if there is any question of a change in the nuclear alert state of United States' forces, the British Government would be informed.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend not sick and tired of the perpetual attacks on the United States of America by the Opposition? Does he agree that the people of this country, who are responsible and concerned about defence and security, are grateful for the tremendous contribution that the United States makes to the defence of the Western world? Will my right hon. Friend tell us
    550
    what it would cost the United Kingdom and western Europe to fill the gap that would be left if the United States' forces returned to North America?
    Mr. Stanley: The cost would be absolutely enormous. I entirely endorse all the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The great majority of the British people are heartily sick of the non-stop anti-Americanism displayed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: In answer to a previous question the right hon. Gentleman said that chemical weapons would not be located in Britain—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must related his question to the present question and not to a previous one.
    Mr. Davies: We are concerned to know where those chemical weapons would be deployed in Britain.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to everyone. This is a question on red alerts.
    Mr. Davies: Would it be on a red alert or would it be in a time of tension, as the United States Senate has said?
    Mr. Stanley: That is a totally academic point, because the issue at the moment is whether NATO adopts the United States force goal. The Americans have made it clear that there will be no deployment in peace time outside the United States.

    Defence Commitments
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans any changes in the application of defence resources to the various defence commitments.
    Mr. Younger: I will be taking decisions in the usual way on the use of defence resources, but I see no need for fundamental changes in our main defence commitments.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as defence costs rise, there will inevitably in due course be a need to review commitments? If commitments are to be reviewed, does he agree that that which is least consistent with fair burden-sharing among the NATO allies is the maintenance of 55,000 troops and a tactical air force in Germany?
    Mr. Younger: If there were in the future a need to reconsider any of our main defence commitments, they would have to be the subject of careful consultation with NATO before they were carried out, but there is no such need at present.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Secretary of State intend to announce the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and make a statement about—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another question about that next.
    Mr. Younger: I have already made it clear that I expect to consider those matters later on this summer.
    Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend may know that I visited Swan Hunter's yard on Tyneside on Friday. Is he aware just how short of orders that fine yard is and how worrying it is to the workers there that they are still awaiting the O2 order of the type 23 frigate?
    Mr. Younger: I am well aware of that position. As my hon. Friend knows, we are evaluating the bid that Swan Hunter has made for the type 23 frigate, No. O2.
    Mr. Duffy: In view of yesterday's defence statement, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the commitment by his Government to provide a modern surface fleet of approximately 50 destroyers and frigates by the mid-1990s will be fulfilled?
    Mr. Younger: I made it reasonably clear yesterday that while there will be some difficult decisions in the usual review of costings in the defence budget, I expect the general size of the Royal Navy to remain broadly as it is at present.

    HMS Fearless and Intrepid
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the amphibious ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.
    Mr. Stanley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister realise that the life of those important capital ships is fast coming to a close? [Interruption.] Unless a decision is taken soon on this matter, Britain's capacity to fulfil her NATO tasks on the flanks of NATO will be severely impaired. If he will not announce a decision now, will he at least announce when he will announce a decision or announce something that will help us in this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: The life of those ships is not fast coming to a close, because Intrepid has just been refitted and Fearless will refit next year.
    Mr. McNamara: I am sure that the Minister of State has enjoyed, as we have, the keenness of both wings of the alliance to get the headlines on those two ships. It is perhaps the only defence issue on which they are united.
    Does not the postponement of decisions on those two ships, together with the postponement of other decisions, show the extent to which Trident is squeezing out the conventional defence of the United Kingdom? Are we not now witnessing the Army, and the Navy in particular, suffering at the expense of Trident expenditure as Ministers postpone decision after decision, hoping to be saved from them when they lose the next general election?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on postponement. We have been saying for a long time that the decisions on the replacement of amphibious shipping will be taken this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just repeated that.

    Binary Chemical Weapons
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss proposals to equip the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with binary chemical weapons.
    Mr. Younger: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces explained in answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 March, a force goal concerning the modernisation of United States' chemical weapon stocks is being considered collectively within NATO. My NATO colleagues and I will meet to discuss allied defence planning matters at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee on 22 May.
    Mr. Wallace: What would be the Secretary of State's attitude to the force goal, having regard to reports that the United States' current stock of chemical weapons is still serviceable, and having regard to the moral repugnance that those weapons create? Is it not a waste of valuable military resources on something which may not serve the purpose for which it was designed?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a matter for discussion within NATO. For our part, we believe that there is a vast and increasing capability in the Soviet Union. NATO and the United States should consider their response to that capability.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Fraser: In view of the shattering rejection that the Government's policies received at the polls last Thursday, not least in Lambeth and Finchley, what changes does the Prime Minister intend to make in policies or in Ministers, or does she contemplate leaving the job to someone else?
    The Prime Minister: I thought it was a pretty shattering rejection of Labour policies.
    Sir Hector Monro: In view of the importance of jobs in Scotland and exports from Britain, how did the discussions go with Korea and Japan on the Scotch whisky industry? Is there any further hope of additional exports to those countries?
    The Prime Minister: The matter was raised with both countries, and I understood from the Japanese Prime Minister that it would be considered. I put our point robustly that they have promised to consider it before that and their promises have not so far come to very much.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that she will not be the most significant lady in the House this afternoon? Will she cease to listen to those of her colleagues, semi-detached or otherwise, who tell her that the Government's policies are not getting through? They are getting through—on unemployment, education and transport—and they are being wholly rejected.
    The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that I had a similar question after the Crosby by-election. That was 18 months before our splendid win at the following general election.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the Conservatives in my constituency of Batley and Spen who won a Labour seat against all odds?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate those people on their wisdom in the local election and on their wisdom in choosing my hon. Friend as a Member for Parliament in the general election.
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maxton:As the Prime Minister's party obtained only 16 per cent. of the vote in Scotland, as it no longer controls one regional council in Scotland, and as the Tory party will be lucky to retain five Conservative seats in Scotland at the next general election, does she really consider that there has been a shattering rejection of Labour party policies, or does she agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that the result reflected the Government's failure to do their job?
    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members sometimes say that we have no mandate to govern Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that on that basis four out of the last five Labour Governments had no mandate to govern England.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the local election in Wandsworth shows that people want a combination of low rates and efficient public services which offers value for money? Will my right hon. Friend continue to pursue policies at a national level that are designed to secure those objectives?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the months go by, many ratepayers will wish that they had followed Wandsworth's example.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: To change the subject from electioneering, can the Prime Minister say what her Government's response will be to Christian Aid week, given their appalling record during the past seven years?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that our record has not been appalling. We led our European colleagues on granting and getting aid given to Ethiopia. We have an excellent record of aid to Ethiopia and other countries in Africa. However, I wish Christian Aid week well, and hope that people will give generously.
    Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dykes: As there has been a further fall in the rate of inflation, and as there is now a negligible Budget deficit, cannot we use those Government successes to build a policy of new investment in the public sector to stimulate the economy? Could not that take precedence over all other matters, including tax cuts?
    The Prime Minister: We are certainly heading for the lowest inflation rate since the 1960s. My hon. Friend will be very much aware of the Government's excellent record on building roads, and, in particular, hospitals. It is excellent.
    Mr. Kinnock: When NHS consultants in London and elsewhere record that Health Service cuts are seriously jeopardising standards of health care and the training of doctors, and are resulting in lengthening waiting lists and a loss of acute services, does the Prime Minister still say that the Health Service is safe in her hands?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, far more resources have been put into the Health Service—from £7·5 billion in the first year that we took over from Labour to £17·5 billion now. There has been a
    554
    great increase in the number of those practising medicine, doctors and nurses, and a great increase in the number of those treated in the Health Service. I believe that they are treated better as medical services improve. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason for the changes in London. Resources have been moved further north under policies started by a Labour Government. Does he now reject and renounce those policies?
    Mr. Kinnock: Surely the Prime Minister must know, since everybody else does, that London's loss has not been anybody else's real gain. When she offers that litany—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister not even begin to understand the difference between statistics and people? Statistics do not feel pain; people do.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Resources have been steadily moved further north for many years at the cost of we London Members—[Interruption.] I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is against that reallocation policy. I therefore assume that he is asking us to stop it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Everybody knows that the RAWP policy was acceptable everywhere for as long as the NHS was expanding adequately. When it is being cut, that policy is a betrayal of the people, north, south, east and west.
    The Prime Minister: There were two years under the Labour Government when the money spent on the Health Service was actually reduced. The fact is that expenditure was £7·5 billion in the last year of the Labour Government and £17·5 billion this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman learn a little arithmetic?
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Mininster accept a little reality? On the question of the crisis in acute beds in London and the surrounding areas, is she aware that the protest by the 10 teaching hospitals, led by Mr. Richard Thompson of St. Thomas's, means that in the last fortnight nine of those hospitals have had to refuse the admission of emergency cases? Is she aware that because of the rationalisation of beds outside London the only place to which patients can come are the teaching hospitals in London? While congratulating the Minister for Health on giving our own Westminster hospital a two-year reprieve, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will do something about stopping the closure of the third major section, that is, the radiography and oncology departments, because we have already lost cardiac surgery and ophthalmology?
    The Prime Minister: Provision for the Riverside health authority, which is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, is affected by the reallocation procedure, partly because the population will fall by 10 per cent. in the next eight years. Despite that, there has been a steady increase in the number of patients treated and a small increase in the number of staff directly concerned with patient care. However, the RAWP procedure is being considered and the National Health Service management board will report by the end of the year. I take it that the Labour party wants the end of the reallocation procedure which it started. The midlands and the north have

    555
    benefited very greatly from the increase in Health Service expenditure, which has gone from £7·5 billion under Labour to £17·5 billion a year.
    Mr. Higgins: Is it not completely wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to give the impression that there have been cuts in total resources for the Health Service, when in reality they have increased? Is he aware that constituencies like mine, which benefit from the reallocation of resources, welcome the change very much indeed?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition does not know that to go from £7·5 billion to £17·5 billion a year is an increase and not a cut.
    Mr. Foot: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any of the talk about a balanced team has reached her ears? Will she give us the assurance that her idea of a balanced team is the present incumbent of Conservative Central Office and Mr. Jeffrey Archer?
    The Prime Minister: A balanced team won in 1979 and in 1983, and hopes to gain a third return ticket.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it remains just as much the case today as it was before last Thursday that living standards and social provision have to be earned and paid for? Does she agree that there will always be politicians who offer free beer, but that there are large numbers of electors who are nursing painful memories of the last binge, and that when it comes to the general election the people will vote soberly and sensibly for her policies of realism?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for policies which have brought an increased standard of living, increased production, increased wealth ownership throughout the country, better trade union reform and respect abroad. I believe the people will vote for us in a third election.
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lloyd: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that there are now 13 million people in Britain living in
    556
    poverty? Can she say whether this is a record of which she is proud, or is the real truth that her Government have pauperised millions of our fellow citizens?
    The Prime Minister: The standard of living, both of those in work and of those on social security, is higher than it has ever been before.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of the trust and support that we showed to the United States in its fight against terrorism recently, that there will be profound dismay throughout the whole of the United Kingdom if we do not have immediate approval of the extradition treaty?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The President and Administration are doing their best to try to bring that about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has gone to the United States to say how strongly we feel about it. I hope that both will be successful in achieving the desired result.
    Mr. Mason: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what punishment she intends to mete out to her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who now has publicly portrayed her as the lame duck Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. He did in fact make many robust policy points on Sunday with which I wholly agree.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order for you arising out of Prime Minister's questions. We all appreciate the difficulty that you have in trying to make sure that all groups within the House have a chance to speak, especially at Prime Minister's Question Time. Some of us have noticed that, since the interview that the Leader of the House gave on television last Sunday, there are two discernible groups in the Tory camp. What we are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that in future, so that you get the balanced ticket right in the House of Commons, instead of calling just anybody from the Conservative Benches, you should make sure you call the Biffen faction and the Thatcher faction, so that that balance can be continued.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may like to know that I never watch television on Sunday.

Teachers (Pay)
3.32 pm
Mr. Giles Radice(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the interim settlement of the teachers' pay dispute.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Last Friday the Burnham primary and secondary committee agreed to increase teachers' salaries in England and Wales from 1 April 1986 by 5·5 per cent. or £520, whichever is the greater. This agreement was reached following undertakings to the management panel from all the teacher associations represented on the teachers' panel. The entire teachers' panel has given an assurance that there will be a return to peace and calm in our schools immediately. The entire teachers' panel notes and supports the ACAS talks and will co-operate in every respect. The teachers' panel agrees that the payment at 1 April 1986 is without prejudice to any subsequent consideration by Burnham in the light of progress in the on-going talks embracing all the aspects being discussed under the aegis of ACAS.
This settlement clears the way for constructive discussion and negotiation under the leadership of the panel appointed by ACAS. It does not prejudge the outcome of the ACAS process and it is to that exercise that teachers, employers and the Government must look for a satisfactory longer-term outcome to the complex of issues raised by the recent dispute. I very much welcome the fact that the National Union of Teachers, which represents a substantial group of teachers in our schools, will now play a full part. We must all welcome the assurances now given about an immediate return to peace and calm in our schools.
The ACAS-led negotiations are addressing a range of issues—pay levels and structures, teachers' duties, teacher appraisal and career development and future negotiating machinery. Clearly, no Secretary of State can commit a Government in advance to the outcome of such an exercise, but I do wish the talks well and hope that they can result in satisfactory resolution of the fundamental problems arising from the present pay structure, the lack of definition about teachers' professional obligations, and performances appraisal and career development. The Government will consider the conclusions carefully and fully when those are available.
Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State accept that last week's agreement brings the prospect of peace and calm to our schools, ensures that the major teachers' union is involved in the ACAS talks and gives teachers a needed pay rise? Does he accept also that, while he and his Ministers have been content to stand on the sidelines as our schools have been disrupted, the Labour party has brought the two sides together and has been instrumental in achieving last Friday's agreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that for a long-term settlement to be achieved and for peace to be guaranteed in future, as he hopes, the Government must recognise the need for additional resources? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's successor will be more successful in persuading the Treasury than he has been.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that the National Union of Teachers has agreed to co-operate fully in the
558
negotiations, therefore acccepting that teachers' pay and teachers' duties must be considered at the same forum. I hope that the hon. Member for Durham accepts that—
Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. He is not the Member for Durham.
Sir Keith Joseph: I refer to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). I hope that he now accepts what he has flinched from accepting before—that what teachers are paid and teachers' duties should be considered together.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is it not true that there has never been a more potent moment in history for the improvement of the education of our children, the uplifting of the morale of teachers, and the improved provision of children's education and that my right hon. Friend is the man who has brought the country to this position? Does he agree that teachers' pay is about 16 per cent. better now than it was when the Government came into office? Will he repudiate the Labour party for locking out the NUT from negotiations with the local authorities recently?
Sir Keith Joseph: I can agree with some of what my hon. Friend says. There are some long-standing and crucial issues for the quality of education; these can emerge if the negotiations are successful, and I hope that they are.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that, but for the intransigence of the Government and the Secretary of State, this progress could have been achieved 16 months ago? If that had happened, the disruption which has been caused IDy ordinary people who are not used to taking such action would not have continued. Is it not a more serious fact that the disruption will begin again unless some new money from the Government—never mind the local authorities—is put on the table to solve the problem and to educate our children in a proper way?
Sir Keith Joseph: Unfortunately, the NUT walked out of the negotiations in 1984 that could have led to this sort of result much earlier. That led the teachers' unions to reject negotiations on the quantified conditional offer of extra money from the Government and delayed the present negotiations for many months.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the damaging effect of the dispute on children in our schools and the way in which teachers have conducted themselves during the dispute, will my right hon. Friend look again at the suggestion that has been made over and over again by Conservative Members, that there should be a professional teachers council to help to raise the standards and morale in the teaching profession?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, if enough teachers approach me with a willingness to see such a council set up, but it would have to be subject to the Government's satisfaction that such a council would serve the interests of children as well as of teachers.
Mr. Clement Freud: While we greatly welcome the return of the NUT to the ACAS talks on sensible terms, does the Secretary of State not accept that ongoing talks need an ongoing Minister and that if we are to have constructive education policies we

559
must have faith in the continuity of the head of the Department? Does he realise how useless it is to education in general that a dearth of policies should now be coining from the Department which he nominally heads?
Sir Keith Joseph: The last thing that I have been accused of in recent years is a dearth of policies.
Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that continual harassment by the NUT is still taking place in many parts of the country, including refusal to cooperate with PTAs, absence from supervising lunch hour engagements and no parent-teacher meetings in many parts of the country? In view of this outrageous behaviour by the NUT, will my right hon. Friend ensure that ongoing teacher assessment is enshrined in any settlement that is reached?
Sir Keith Joseph: Teacher appraisal is one of the subjects that is being considered by the ACAS working party. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I very much hope that the NUT's undertaking that peace and calm would return to our schools will be fulfilled.
Mr. Jack Ashley: In view of the Secretary of State's comments about the National Union of Teachers, will he concede that teachers in particular and education in general would have been the poorer without the efforts of Fred Jarvis and his colleagues. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They deserve the support of both sides of the House of Commons.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I missed the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Ashley: May I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry that the Secretary of State is deaf. I shall repeat my question for him. The point I was making was that teachers in particular and education in general would be the poorer without the efforts of Fred Jarvis and his colleagues and that they deserve the support of both sides of the House of Commons.
Sir Keith Joseph: On no possible account could I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was that particular individual and his executive who wrecked the negotiations in 1984 and delayed negotiations for months and months in 1985 and 1986.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the dispute has been extremely damaging to children and very worrying to parents. Does he agree that the settlement of the dispute is widely welcomed on this side of the House? Will he take steps to arrange the payment of the £1·25 billion on a shorter time scale, as that would do a great deal to improve teacher morale, particularly if assessment were to be stitched closely into the agreement?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As to the second part, payment of the additional money specified by the Government depends upon satisfaction of the conditions laid down, and that is the subject of the discussions that are now taking place under ACAS.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Although the whole House will agree that the return of peace, high morale and high standards in our schools is urgently needed, does the Secretary of State not agree that if that objective is not rapidly achieved, the prospects for the new examination will be diminished, which means that it will be impossible to introduce it in September this year?
Sir Keith Joseph: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the disruption in our schools is entirely due to—(HON. MEMBERS: "You."}—the decision of the executives of the large teachers' unions, backed by a number of their members. I have constantly said that it is wrong and unprofessional to disrupt the education of children.
Mr. Richard Holt: Although we welcome the agreement, is my right hon. Friend aware that I hope that it will not be paid for by the closure of further community schools such as Huntcliff in Saltburr -on-Sea in my constituency?
Sir Keith Joseph: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenious supplementary question.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Although the Secretary of State now seeks to distance himself from and not intervene in the ACAS discussions, does he accept that it was his pressure and his manipulation behind the scenes that prevented an earlier settlement? Does he further accept that the current discussions are a sign of the failure of the Government's policy of trying to use children and parents to hatter the NUT?
Sir Keith Joseph: That is a grossly distorted point of view. It is the Government's intention to bring about improved quality of teaching for children of all abilities in our schools. For that purpose, we judge it necessary to open up possibilities for many more promotions, a much more promising career structure for teachers, a satisfactory pay structure for teachers and appraisal and more in-service training for teachers. If those conditions are satisfied, we shall ask the taxpayer to find additional money.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:
Mrs. Elizabeth Lois Shields, for Ryedale.
Patrick Allan McLoughlin, Esq., for Derbyshire, West.

Hospitals (Newcastle)
3.49 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The proposed closure of Health Service facilities in Newcastle hospitals".
The matter is important because the latest proposals for cuts follow the recent most severe assaults on Health Service provision in the northern region. The matter is urgent because the proposals became public knowledge today, and today this devastation of Health Service provision in the north should be stopped in its tracks. Our community is not prepared to tolerate the wicked, unfair and unequal closures imposed on our region.
I am grateful to Newcastle's local newspaper, The Journal, for making public the latest outrages. A further 166 hospital beds are to go in Newcastle. This time the excuse is forecasts of population nine years hence. Yet the cuts are to be made now, lengthening waiting lists across the northern region.
Already under the existing provision, 77 per cent. of cases which were urgent last September waited more than a month for treatment. The treatment of urgent cases in the northern region is far worse than the national average.
The position has been exacerbated yet further by the Government's consistent failure to bring funding into line even with national average provision under the resource allocation working party revenue targets. In a recently published letter, Professor Sam Shuster said:
"In Newcastle last year, money was available for replacement of less than 10 per cent. of required medical equipment in the teaching hospital. In December we had to reduce spending by 10 per cent. and in January our district health authority found itself short of £3 million, not from overspending but from Government's failure to honour its responsibility for inflationary increases in rates and salaries. The deficit will be met by closing a children's hospital and orthopaedic and dermatology wards although this will seriously affect the work of several departments."
The steady and consistent closure of Health Service provision in the northern region is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority both of our community and of the region's publicly elected representatives. This outrage should be stopped now, and if this Government will not stop it, the next Government most certainly will.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The proposed closure of Health Service facilities in Newcastle hospitals."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other methods of bringing it before us.

Para-Pace Limited, Cramlington
3.53 pm
Mr. John Ryman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The peremptory closure, without notice, of the Para-Pace Limited factory in Cramlington by the management, the disappearance of valuable machinery purchased with regional grant funds for that factory, and the refusal to pay any wages and redundancy payments to the entire work force."
The facts of the case are short and disgraceful. The company received substantial regional grant funds as recently as March 1985. Last week, without any notice to the work force, the factory was closed by the management, valuable machinery was removed, no wages were paid, and the management, in the form of the principal shareholder, did a moonlight flit, disappeared and cannot be found. I drew those matters to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry, and yesterday the Minister responsible kindly saw me. Both he and his officials were extremely helpful, and I pay tribute to them for that.
The plain fact remains that the entire work force, which consists of women, has been left high and dry without wages, without redundancy payments and with no prospect of recovering them as the law stands. There has been no receivership and no liquidation, so they cannot obtain payments to which they would otherwise be entitled from the Department of Employment. It is a disgraceful state of affairs, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider urgently granting the facilities for this matter to be debated today, notwithstanding the important debates that have already been arranged.
This is typical of what happens in the north-east, when some people obtain regional grants but, when they are in financial difficulties, do a moonlight flit, throw out the work force without paying them, and remove machinery—bought with regional grant funds—which, in one way or another, leaves the region and disappears. That is an abuse of public money and a denial of the rights of the work force. In this case, the workers have been left helpless. I have advised them to apply for a liquidation so as to rank as preferential creditors, and the documents for that will be drawn up in my office this afternoon.
It is important that we discuss this matter urgently to find out what the Government can do about it. I ask you to intervene in this disgraceful state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. A serious fraud has been committed. I have given the name of the individual to the Minister, but I shall not mention it in public. However, I ask you to assist me in obtaining time today to debate this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The peremptory closure, without notice, of the Para-Pace Limited factory in Cramlington by the management."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decison that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today and tomorrow. I regret that I

563
do not consider the matter that the hon. Member has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 813) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Quota and Other Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 787) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
Question agreed to

Shops (No. 2)
3.57 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to amend the Shops Acts.
Those of us in the Conservative party who opposed the Government's Shops Bill always argued that a fair compromise was possible between the need to reform the law and the desire to keep Sunday as a special day.
Mr. Richard Page: What about amendments?
Mr. Stanbrook: We were dealing only with the Second Reading.
That was not the view of the Government, who believed that the only way to reform the law was to abolish all restrictions on Sunday trading. It was their view that the position of Sunday would not thereby be harmed. As the House knows, the Government's Bill was rejected, and we are told that it will not be restored.
Therefore, we are left with the situation in which almost everyone agrees that the present law is unsatisfactory and the need for reform urgent. Ministers actually gave these grounds for introducing the Bill in the first place. If it is true, it is hard to see how they can put off legislating, or encouraging private Members' legislation, in a Parliament that still has another two years to run. On the other hand, many Conservative Members want to assist the Government out of the dilemma by suggesting the main lines of a compromise that they, at least, would be prepared to support.
The Bill is an attempt to produce that compromise. It starts from the basic principle that Sunday is a special day, the status of which should be supported by legal restrictions on the opening of shops on Sunday. Subject to that principle, it proposes the deregulation of Sunday trading for all small shops and the removal of restrictions on garden centres. For larger shops that serve the needs of the public in their leisure and recreational activities, including do-it-yourself shops, there is provision for opening on Sundays for a limited period at the option of the local authority. There is provision for holiday resorts and tourist areas. No shop that opens lawfully now would be subject to further restrictions.
Like all compromises, the Bill will not wholly satisfy anyone. It will certainly not please those large enterprises which seek to make Sunday just another trading day. As for most small shops, it is fear of losing trade to the big stores that would drive them to open on Sundays. Without that fear, it is unlikely that many would open except to meet existing local demand. The Bill defines small shops as those with no more than three persons engaged in the business of the shop present at any one time. Obviously, this and other details would be open to amendment in Committee—[Laughter.]—on a free vote.
The passage of this Bill, or something like it, would put to rest a controversy which has bedevilled local government, undermined the law, frustrated commercial enterprise and affronted the consciences of millions of people. It will make the law of Sunday trading simple. fair and enforceable, with the minimum of anomalies, while at the same time preserving Sunday as a special day, a day predominantly of rest, recreation and family life. I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.
4.1 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Baldry: I wish to oppose the Bill, Sir. I do not intend to take up time by dividing the House, but I believe that a number of points should be made.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is making an hone1st and honourable attempt to—
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I know what the hon. Member is going to say.
Mr. Cook: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I thought that it was against the rules of the House for an hon. Member to object to a ten-minute Bill if he did not intend to divide the House.
Mr. Speaker: Normally, if an hon. Member seeks to oppose a ten-minute Bill, his feet should follow his voice.
Mr. Baldry: Let us see where we get, Mr. Speaker. A number of points need to be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington suggests that we can get around the present anomaly on Sunday trading by drawing up a number of categories of shops and saying that certain categories should be allowed to open on Sundays. Who will define a small shop? My hon. Friend says that it is a shop in which only three people are employed. Clearly, that will result in enforcement problems, and inspectors will need constantly to check whether shops are employing more than three people. Shops will need constantly to notify local authorities of the number of people they employ.
Garden centres will be allowed to open. That is fine, but what is the logic in allowing a person to buy a pot from a garden centre but not from a local hardware shop? We understand that shops in tourist areas will be allowed to open. There will be considerable resentment in Banbury if shops in Stratford-upon-Avon are allowed to open on Sundays to attract tourists but shops in Banbury are not.
I understand that shops involved in leisure and recreational activities will be allowed to open on Sundays. Does that mean that clothing shops will be allowed to sell leisurewear on Sundays but not formal suits and that chemists will be allowed to sell sunglasses and suntan lotion but not other items to people who want to go on the beaches?
With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I suggest that the Bill will simply replace one set of anomalies with another. That is not the way forward to resolve what I think all hon. Members agree is a ridiculous piece of legislation. I suggest that the best way forward still is total deregulation, with adequate and proper safeguards for those who may be employed on Sundays.
I do not intend to take up time by dividing the House, but I believe that those points had to be made. If other hon. Members wish to divide the House, that is their right.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind what I have said.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 25.

Division No174]

[4.05 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Key, Robert

Alton, David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ashdown, Paddy

Latham, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Meadowcroft, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Benyon, William

Mudd, David

Best, Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Bevan, David Gilroy

Proctor, K. Harvey

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Rathbone, Tim

Body, Sir Richard

Rhodes James, Robert

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Sayeed, Jonathan

Burt, Alistair

Shersby, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Conway, Derek

Steel, Rt Hon David

Cormack, Patrick

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Dorrell, Stephen

Stokes, John

Fry, Peter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gale, Roger

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Thornton, Malcolm

Gower, Sir Raymond

Trotter, Neville

Grant, Sir Anthony

Wainwright, R.

Greenway, Harry

Wallace, James

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Wigley, Dafydd

Harris, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Sir Adam Butler and Mr. Patrick Thompson.

Hunter, Andrew

NOES

Ashby, David

Norris, Steven

Baldry, Tony

Osborn, Sir John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Portillo, Michael

Brinton, Tim

Skinner, Dennis

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Stern, Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Thurnham, Peter

Forth, Eric

Wood, Timothy

Freud, Clement

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Hayes, J.

Hicks, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Greg Knight.

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

McCrindle, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. W. Benyon, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Adam Butler, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Sir Peter Mills and Sir William van Straubenzee.

SHOPS (No. 2)
Mr. IvorStanbrook accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to amend the Shops Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6 June, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]
Mr. Bob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Division bells are not working in Dean's Yard, which I believe is the most remote point for offices of hon.

567
Members from the Division Lobbies. Therefore, it has become impossible for some of us to know whether a Division is taking place and we are likely to miss any Divisions that take place today, or until the bells are working.
Mr. Speaker: I shall have the matter looked into and ensure that the Division bells are working later this evening.

Nuclear Energy
Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to this important debate on civil nuclear matters, I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must also announce to the House that no fewer than 35 right hon. and hon. Members have already indicated their wish to take part in the debate. Therefore, I propose to have a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I appreciate that than: may mean that some Privy Councillors will be caught in that 10-minute limit, but I am sure that they will accept that is fair to all concerned.
4.17 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the steps taken by the Government to keep the House and the public informed of the consequences for the United Kingdom of the accident at the nuclear plant at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; endorses the Government's commitment to the safety of the complete nuclear fuel cycle in the United Kingdom; and in that context approves the Government's first stage response on 2nd May to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste (House of Commons Paper No. 191), setting out as it does the principles against which current proposals to dispose of low-level radioactive waste can be considered.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that you have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I shall refer to that later. You have not selected the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment and I do not criticise that at all. None the less, I agree with the terms of his amendment, which makes it clear that there is no intention in holding this debate today that it will any way pre-empt a full response to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste management. That will be given full consideration in due course.
I should like to begin by giving a report on the latest position in the United Kingdom, arising out of the Chernobyl accident. But first I express on behalf of the whole House our sorrow to hear of the deaths of more Russian citizens as a result of this accident, and the continuing grave illness of others.
The House will know from my statement of 6 May that as soon as news of the accident was received, the standing arrangements for monitoring were stepped up. The remnants of the cloud arrived over the United Kingdom on Friday 2 May. Since then a daily bulletin has been issued to the press, giving the results of the monitoring in non-technical language. We have also made available all the raw data on which the bulletins were based. The bulletins were issued first by the National Radiological Protection Board, working closely with officials of my Department and other Departments concerned, and from Tuesday 6 May by my Department and the Scottish Office. At all times, including the long weekend of 3 to 5 May, Ministers were kept closely informed of developments, and I was in touch with colleagues.
Radioactivity has been measured in the air, in water, in milk and on foodstuffs. From Monday 5 May to Saturday 10 May, the Government advised people to avoid drinking fresh rain-water over long periods. Apart from that, levels of radioactivity at no time, and in no place,

569
approached the levels at which special action needs to be considered. Those levels are well below the levels at which action has to be taken.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Several of my constituents have asked what is the difference between rain-water taken from tanks outside one's house and consumed there and then and the same rain-water when it falls in reservoirs and enters our normal water supplies.
Mr. Baker: Rain-water that is caught in a can and used for drinking is in a much more concentrated form than when it falls into a reservoir or falls on to the ground and is diluted.
I was referring to the levels at which special action has to be taken. For instance, the maximum level of radiation found in milk was 471 becquerels per litre. That compares to 2,000 becquerels per litre, which is the level at which action ought to be considered.
The highest levels recorded as a result of the cloud occurred over the weekend of 3 to 5 May. Since then levels have been falling every day, and are now either at or approaching normal background levels in all parts of the country.
I can confirm that no special precautions are needed. I repeat what I said to the House last week. It is safe to drink milk. It is safe to drink tap-water. It is not necessary to take iodine tablets. In particular—as we have received many questions on the point—I can confirm that no special precautions are necessary in giving fresh milk to infants and pregnant women.
My Department and the Scottish Office will continue to issue regular bulletins so long as they are needed. As long as there are no further discharges from Chernobyl, the incident may be regarded as over for this country by the end of the week, although its traces will remain.
The extensive and regular monitoring confirms the very low level of exposure of United Kingdom citizens. That is not unexpected, given the distance from the Ukraine and the dispersal and dilution that occurred en route. It is nevertheless right that those arrangements were set in hand as soon as the news of the accident was received. The House would not have expected otherwise.
I now refer to the wider consequences of Chernobyl. Chernobyl will have a profound effect on public opinion and on the assessment of nuclear power not just by scientists or Governments, but by ordinary people in this country who vividly have been brought face to face with the possible consequences of a nuclear accident. It has underlined the heavy responsibilities that go with nuclear power. I should like to draw some lessons from it.
First, nuclear accidents do not respect national boundaries. Each country with a nuclear programme has a responsibility to ensure that it is regulated properly and safely. It also has a responsibility to ensure that if something does go wrong, information is passed to and, where necessary, help is sought rapidly from other countries. The agreement reached at the Tokyo economic summit to recommend that an international convention be drawn up, which will commit the parties to report and exchange information in the event of nuclear emergencies, it to be welcomed.
Secondly, what should be our response as politicians in a free and open democracy? Trust has to be built. It is no good scientists or politicians simply asserting in a
570
Panglossian way that everything is all right with nuclear power. The case must be reargued with complete openness. The only way of maintaining that confidence is to show that every individual brick in the edifice is sound.
Even the most extreme opponent of the industry should be prepared to accept, provided it can achieve the standards of safety he demands, that nuclear electricity provides secure supplies and some environmental advantages. On the other hand, the most passionate supporter of the industry should accept that if a serious accident does occur, results are far more serious than in most other industries. The stakes, both of potential benefit and cost, are high, which is why such passions surround the industry.
Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the concern that the Secretary of State has just expressed, can he explain why the authorities in Scotland are going ahead with putting fuel into the new advanced gas-cooled reactor station at Torness in my constituency, apparently several months before it was originally planned, and years before there is any need to commission new nuclear generating capacity in this country?
Mr. Baker: I shall refer to the nuclear industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will wind up the debate, and I think that he will be able to deal with that specific point. I shall deal with the central issue about nuclear power.
The Government continue to believe that, subject as it is to the most stringent safeguards, nuclear generation has an essential contribution to make to the provision of electric power. We have to remember that by the end of the century 78 per cent. of electricity in France will be generated by nuclear power. In Germany, it is expected to be approaching 45 per cent. That compares with about 18 per cent. in the United Kingdom at present. Those two countries are not likely to halt or reverse their nuclear programmes, because neither has over-abundant supplies of fossil fuels. Nuclear electricity will give their industries a competitive edge. Already, French electricity is the cheapest in Europe. However, having said that, and going back to the benefits and costs, I wish to re-emphasise the fact that safety is the key issue. Safety must be the supreme consideration, particularly in design, in operation and in disposal.
I have just set out the Government's view on nuclear power. I hope that my shadow, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will be able to set out the definitive Labour party position on nuclear power and go a little further than in his interview on Radio 4 this morning. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is in his place to hammer home his own support. When it comes to the Labour party sorting itself out on nuclear power, I can only recall the words of a former leader of the Labour party commenting on supposed Tory disarray:
"I do not want to intrude into private grief."
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
A third lesson of the Chernobyl accident is that openness is also a necessary condition, not only because it is right in itself, but because every now and then some outside critic will be right about something. Openness is

571
not a public relations technique; it is part of the process of the critical analysis that we need. We are already far more open than we have to be—
Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.
Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
We are already far more open than we have to be, but where public safety and assurance are involved, improvements must always be looked for. The Secretary of State for the Environment is one of the regulators and guarantors of the public interest. He has to be vigilant and must take a critical and probing approach to safety. He has to be sure that no undue risk is taken.
The nuclear industry in the United Kingdom is the most regulated industry in the country, subject to no fewer than 15 acts of Parliament and sets of regulations; and in England to the scrutiny of the nuclear installations inspectorate, the radiochemical inspectorate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with parallel arrangements in Scotland and Wales.
If an incident should occur, there are clear guidelines on what should be reported and how such incidents should be handled. The guidelines were explained to the House by the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 26 July 1982.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Baker: I should like to finish this passage, and then I shall give way.
Reports are required as quickly as possible—normally within 24 hours. All incidents involving death, serious injury, substantial over-exposure to radiation or a release of radioactivity that requires special action to be taken are reported to Ministers under those arrangements. They are also reported to local liaison committees and the local population, as well as to the work force. All reports to Ministers are published each quarter by the Health and Safety Executive. The most recent report, dated 3 April, referred to three incidents in the fourth quarter of 1985. None of them involved any radiological hazard.
In addition to those formal reporting arrangements, there are agreed interdepartmental arrangements for other incidents to be reported to the authorising Departments—in England, my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Both those Departments have inspectorates whose job it is to monitor operations and ensure that the terms of the authorisations for discharge or disposal of waste are being complied with. In the course of that work they receive a good deal of information about day-to-day operations, including details of minor incidents—many of them quite trivial. The incident at Dungeness A power station on 1 April, which The Observer reported, was of that type. The amount of radioactivity discharged was tiny—no more than hospital incinerators are allowed to discharge every day without special authorisation.
With regard to such minor incidents, I have given instructions within my Department that Ministers should be told of all incidents involving the release of radioactivity, however small, so that we can decide whether they are sufficiently important to be made public. That should make it unnecessary to introduce any changes
572
to the formal reporting arrangements. However, we are quite willing to look at the arrangements to see whether any changes might be helpful.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is much concern about the safety of pressurised water reactors, especially in the light of the Three Mile Island disaster? Whatever the Secretary of State may say, all Opposition Members are united in the belief that the building of PWRs should not go ahead. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he is in favour of the PWR programme going ahead? If so, is he in favour of it going ahead before the next general election?
Mr. Baker: We are awaiting the report from Sir Frank Layfield on that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I have a quasi-judicial position in the inquiries. The Government have made their position clear on their commitment to the PWR programme
Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. On the issue of openness, he has been careful to avoid saying anything about the application of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to certain aspects of civil nuclear power. Is not the application of that Act one aspect that prevents openness and proper debate?
On the specific incident at Dungeness, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, does he recognise that his Administration changed the rules which had been introduced by the previous Labour Government? The Labour Government insisted that such incidents had to be reported to Ministers and regulatory bodies and also had to be reported publicly. It is essential that the public and the press should have the right to this information, not just Ministers and regulating bodies, which may then decide whether the public should be informed. Frankly, that is unacceptable.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many incidents of a minor nature in nuclear installations. I hesitate to use the word "trivial", but they are of a minor nature. As I have announced in relation to these incidents, they will be reported to Ministers within my Department—[Interruption.] I would like to proceed on this matter one stage at a time.
The local inspector in my Department received the information about the incident at Dungeness. He decided that it was of such a minor nature that he did not report it back. I do not criticise my official for making that judgment. I believe that he made the correct decision. On the other hand, it is right that Ministers should be told, so that they can make an assessment.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Baker: I should like to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Copeland before I give way.
The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether the supply of information should go beyond Ministers. I am prepared and willing to consider the publication of all these minor incidents. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some are very minor indeed, and we must decide whether all these incidents need to be reported. I shall be guided by an attitude and predilection to be open in these matters, because that is the best way.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Baker: I have ensured that the serious incidents that we know about are automatically made public when they occur. If there is a general feeling, as a result of this debate, that these incidents should be made open and published—and we must remember that many of these incidents are very minor—I shall respond to that reaction.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding in that genuine manner and for opening this point for debate.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, these incidents are trivial, there is all the more reason for not keeping them quiet. Has not the keeping quiet of the Dungeness incident resulted in it covering seven front page columns of a major national newspaper? The impression was created that the authorities did not want to disclose the fact that the accident had occurred. Does the Secretary of State agree that that example is simply playing into the hands of those people who may want to exaggerate or exploit the nature of these matters?
Mr. Baker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, and that is why I have decided to make the change. As I have said, I am prepared to make information about incidents available, if the House wishes. When that was done in the past, many trivial incidents were reported. However, if the House wishes to have details about each incident, there is no reason why it should not.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Secretary of State consider extending the publication of these incidents into all areas in which radioactivity is released into the air, including hospitals?
Mr. Baker: There are, of course, more than 5,000 sites where operations involving radioactivity are registered by the nuclear installations inspectorate. I accept the anxiety about these matters that hon. Members have expressed.
Mr. Tony Speller: I apologise for intervening in my right hon. Friend's speech. However, I entirely accept his arguments about the regulation and control of nuclear installations in Britain. What steps does he intend to take with regard to French installations which lie beside the English Channel facing the south and southwest of England? Our controls may be perfect, but I am not sure that controls are perfect elsewhere.
Mr. Baker: There is a treaty obligation between France and the United Kingdom for information to be exchanged on any incidents. That is important, because France has many power stations.
Mr. Benn: The Secretary of State referred to the period when I was Secretary of State for Energy. Following the leak at Windscale, which was not reported to me, I laid down that every incident, however small, should not only be reported to the Minister but should be published. This Government have changed that practice. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Is he now prepared to return to the practice of publishing every incident? The reason for that is perfectly straightforward. Some of the more serious nuclear accidents may occur through human error, and often the small examples of human error, which come out in the practice of full publication, alert people to the true nature of the risk that they may be facing.
Mr. Baker: I believe that I am right in recalling that the right hon. Gentleman made the change that he has just described. However, I understand that his Department was swamped by a large number of small and minor incidents. I believe that arrangements were made—I will check on this—for some restraint and concentration upon the major incidents. What I have announced today meets what the House wants. I have made the announcement for the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Copeland. I believe that it is better to be frank and open in these matters.
It has become clear in the past two or three weeks that generally people in this country have a considerable lack of knowledge about radiation and radioactivity. I am sure that the population has learnt a great deal in the course of the past three weeks. I am sure that, as a result of what they have learnt, they will have a more balanced understanding and assessment of the risks.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki rose—
Mr. Baker: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I must then begin to move on to consider radioactivity.
Mr. Terlezki: If, God forbid, a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl occurred in this country, would the labour force inside and outside the reactor, have some kind of protective clothing to protect them as they walk around the buildings? About an hour ago I received a message from Kiev to the effect that people are working around the reactor at Chernobyl without protective clothing. Only the police and officials are wearing protective clothing. The other people working in the Chernobyl area are prisoners.
Mr. Baker: As I have made clear this afternoon, if there is the possibility of a serious accident at a nuclear installation, that will be reported immediately to the local community and to the work force. There are arrangements and plans for dealing with such emergencies which involve the use of protective clothing.
Mr. Hardy rose—
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Baker: I have been generous in yielding to hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The Government's action on the disposal of radioactive waste is a good example of the approach which I consider is essential if there is to be a proper understanding of the issues involved.
First, let me deal with the scale of the problem of radioactive waste.
Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.
The amounts of radioactive waste that we can expect to arise by the year 2000 are not large compared with the amounts of waste generated by other industries. Society nevertheless has a responsibility for their safe disposal. Indeed, if we were to close down all nuclear power stations tomorrow, we would still have to dispose of existing wastes, as well as those arising from the decommissioning.
It is not a responsibility that should be left to later generations. By the year 2000 there will be 380,000 cu m

575
of low level waste for disposal, and by the year 2030 1,200,000 cu I am aware that hon. Members have some difficulty in envisaging the volumes that are involved—
Mr. Neil Kinnock: A hell of a lot.
Mr. Baker: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, in a simile that he will understand, that by the year 2000 that will be equivalent to about six towers the size of the Victoria tower, and 19 towers the size of the Victoria tower by the year 2030.
Mr. Norman Atkinson rose—
Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
The only national site for low level waste is at Drigg in Cumbria.
Mr. Home Robertson: Why not in the Victoria tower?
Mr. Baker: I think that there would be just a slight objection to that.
Assuming that available techniques for compaction are used by 1987, and that it proves possible to develop the whole of the existing site, Drigg will be full by about 2010. Given the time needed to investigate, consult, and develop any subsequent site, it is only prudent to press ahead now as quickly as possible with the investigation of another site.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will my right hon. Friend look closely again at the figures for Drigg, including the figures for low-level waste that is supposed to go outside Drigg? As a result of answers from his Department, for which I am most grateful, it appears that, compacted in the manner which it has in mind, the total amount which needs to go outside Drigg is only one fifth of the amount which needs to go into Drigg if also compacted.
Mr. Baker: I have looked carefully into the figures and also at the effect of compaction. If compaction is started, as we hope, in 1987 in Drigg, the figures that I have announced will still stand. I shall be happy to look at them again, but I have looked at them again and again, and I am satisfied that those figures reflect the waste that society will have to dispose of.
On 2 May the Government published their response to those recommendations of the Environment Select Committee that were directly relevant to the development of a near-surface facility. In this we welcomed the Committee's conclusions that safe disposal routes were available in the United Kingdom and that indefinite storage presented unacceptable risks. We also reaffirmed our commitment to the objectives for the management of radioactive wastes set out in the White Paper, "Radioactive Waste Management", published in July 1982.
Since 1976 the previous Labour Government and our own have sought a solution to this problem. Therefore, I was rather taken aback to hear the Liberal party spokesman on this morning's "Today" radio programme say that we were rushing into this. This is a policy that the previous Labour Government and our own have been trying to resolve over 10 years based upon disposal rather than storage on site.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the Select Committee's recommendations was that there should now
576
be a stocktaking and assessment of the options set out in their report before a commitment is made to a specific course of action and that that is the valid criticism that can be made of the Government's present intentions, even given the fact, which I accept, that things have not moved quickly over the past 10 years?
Mr. Baker: The Select Committee also pointed out that things have not moved too quickly over the past 10 years. In recommendation 8, it said:
"Near-surface disposal facilities are only acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes and must be fully engineered on a complete containment basis."
The advice that I have had subsequently from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee draws attention to the difficulties that successive Governments have had in finding a solution to the problem.
In February I published a draft of the special development order that it is proposed to lay before the House shortly to enable NIREX to investigate sites for the shallow disposal of radioactive waste in clay. As a result of the comments and views expressed, the Government have made a number of detailed changes to the order—for example, in the hours of working. They have also decided to limit the wastes to be deposited to what is broadly described as low-level waste. I shall come back to that point later.
I should emphasise that the work that would be carried out under the proposed special development order will be only the first step in the development of a near-surface facility. The planning permission will only enable NIREX to investigate the geology and hydrogeology of the four sites at Bradwell. Elstow, Fulbeck and South Killingholme. It carries no presumption that any one of the sites will ultimately be developed. It will be for NIREX, as the prospective developer, to assess the information that it gets and then decide whether it wants to make a formal planning application.
NIREX has already said that it will make the data gathered available to those with an interest, so that they can, if they wish, make their own independent assessment. I have already made it clear that any planning application will be subject to a planning inquiry under an independent inspector. We are determined that at each stage there should be maximum opportunity for consultation with those who may be affected.
I accept that it has proved particularly difficult to bridge the gap between the scientists' assessments of risks and the honestly held perceptions of the communities that could be affected. I have received representations and seen personally the Members of Parliament concerned with those four sites. I know only too well the anxieties that their communities are expressing about the proposals. Having listened to their representations, particularly on the distinction between intermediate and low-level waste, I have decided, as was made clear in our response to the Select Committee, that many people will be reassured if a near-surface facility is used only for low-level waste.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: This directly affects my constituency. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the principal issue in the debate about the disposal of nuclear waste is not so much safety, which is the matter to which he has directed his comments, as public confidence. Until such time as public confidence can be restored to this area, it is unacceptable to expect

577
communities affected by the disposal sites to be subjected to any sort of investigation, least of all a proposal to dispose of low-level waste. Much more damage will be done to the nuclear industry if these proposals go forward before such fears are allayed.
Mr. Baker: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty, but we have a duty as a society to deal responsibly with the disposal of radioactive waste. That arises and will continue to arise. As I have said, it would arise even if one were to stop nuclear generation, which I think would be the wrong policy for Britain. Over the past 10 years—I emphasise that that covers two previous Governments—we have tried to find a way to deal with nuclear waste safely. I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the point made by the Select Committee, that it is possible to engineer safe disposal shallow repositories. There is one in north France. My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government has visited that site, and I hope to do so later in the year. The site in France is being managed in a safe way. However, I agree there is a great deal of anxiety, and that must be allayed.
Many people are not aware of the type of low-level waste that arises. Some of it is surplus equipment from laboratories and hospitals, equipment from the nuclear power plants and other industries where radioactive operations take place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) will draw to his constituent's attention the various reports that have been made available by NIREX and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.
I wish to deal with the difference between intermediate and low-level waste. I hope that my hon. Friends who will be affected will recognise that the Government have made a major concession on this matter. In the light of the views expressed by the Environment Committee—which also made the point regarding what was suitable for a near-surface facility—the Government have decided that NIREX should proceed on the basis that a near-surface facility will be authorised only for the disposal of what is broadly described as low-level waste.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: May I take the Minister back to his comments about high-level waste? Is it not time that the Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, should have much more confidence in the advice given by nuclear engineers and scientists? Now is the time to take a decision about the fast breeder programme, which is the most effective method of minimising the programme for the disposal of radioactive waste. The decisions about the year 2000 must be taken. If that is done, we will then take the responsibility from future generations. They will be able to handle a manageable method of disposal. If the Government take a decision to go ahead with the fast breeder programme, we will be in the same position as the French.
Mr. Baker: I am not sure how widely that view will be supported on the Opposition Benches. I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has made a point which will be developed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Atkinson: Do not try to make a party political point. Take the matter seriously.
Mr. Baker: I am not trying to make a party political point. This is an important matter, and we cannot be faulted for wishing to proceed with it.
Short-lived and long-lived intermediate-level waste will, therefore, be stored, pending the identification and development of a deep disposal site or until radioactivity has reduced sufficiently for its disposal, as low-level waste. The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Matthews, has endorsed this approach. The nuclear industry, in its interim response to the Environment Committee, published on 9 May, has made it clear that it does not see any strong technical economic or operational objections to this.
I want to assure my hon. Friends and the House that the facility will be designed and constructed to strict radiological criteria. It will have to meet strict standards of containment. Unsuitable wastes will be excluded. The proposals will also have to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 concerning the interests and the safety of workers and the public.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend is dealing with the conditions that will be imposed and the conditions which the inspector at the public inquiry will be asked to consider. Will the inspector at the public inquiry also be asked to consider the desirability of other methods of disposing of this waste?
Mr. Baker: We have decided and the Select Committee has recommended—this has received the support of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee—that it is perfectly safe to dispose of low-level waste in shallow depositories. That recommendation has caused an enormous amount of debate. The proposals that we are putting forward are designed to deal with that debate.
Intermediate-level waste will require deep disposal, either in a mineshaft or under the sea. The Swedes have an under-sea disposal site, which I hope to visit later this year and to study the nature of the wastes. The volume of low-level waste is substantial and significant. We believe that the way to proceed is for the shallow disposal of low-level wastes in clay.
I re-emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that safety is paramount not only in the operation of nuclear installations but in the disposal of radioactive waste. We cannot afford to be careless in any way, shape or form.
The Government remain committed to the safe development of nuclear power and the disposal of all radioactive waste. The Government have taken and will continue to take the necessary steps to achieve this objective. I invite the House to support the motion on the Order Paper.
4.55 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add
'believes that safety. health and environmental protection must be of paramount importance in the operation of the civil nuclear power industry; deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to inform effectively the British people of the nature, level and implications of the radioactive fallout caused by the Chernobyl accident; condemns the Government's failure to develop acceptable, comprehensive policies for the necessary storage and monitoring of nuclear waste: recognises the need for an urgent and comprehensive safety review of Britain's existing

579
nuclear power stations; believes that such a review should be published, and debated by Parliament; and consequently demands that whilst these matters remain unresolved Her Majesty's Government should not proceed with any expansion of civil nuclear power.'.
I join the Secretary of State for the Environment in expressing, on behalf of the Labour party, our sympathy and regret at the loss of life and the continued toll of injury and illness caused in the Ukraine as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. In view of what the Secretary of State had to say about Divisions, we wait with interest to see whether the Government's Chief Whip is able to shepherd all his flock into the Lobby with the Government tonight and indeed, if the Chief Whip is able to work up the courage to go into the Lobby after them.
Britain was among the first nations of the world to develop nuclear power to generate electricity. For more than 30 years, that development has proceeded, based on British research and engineering. Methods of scrutiny and public control have developed parallel to the development of the industry. The nuclear industry, from the outset publicly owned and subject to close Government supervision, now produces about 18 per cent. of our electricity. Those employed in the industry are all members of the appropriate trade unions.
The industry has been the object of much piecemeal inquiry and has suffered from regular changes of policy. There is now, and has been, a lack of any coherent strategy. There has been a specific failure to develop an acceptable national policy for the storage and monitoring of nuclear waste. The policy on discharges into the environment has also been unacceptable.
Although those responsible for managing the industry cannot escape their responsibility for failure or errors, it is, above all, the ineffective nature of a framework of Government policy which lies at the centre of the present difficulties. There has been no coherent or comprehensive review of the overall progress and impact of civil nuclear power in Britain. It is remarkable to reflect on that. It is time that we had such a review.
In the past 16 years, I have dealt with many issues on behalf of my constituents, such as health, environmental protection, safety to communities, secrecy and discharges into the environment. I have learned a great deal about the industry. But I am conscious of the fact that there is a massive job still to be done in this country if we are ever to persuade people that the industry has a sustainable future.
The level of misunderstanding between those responsible for running the industry and the public is appalling. It has been continually bedevilled by secrecy, obfuscation, the deliberate withholding of information that the public has a legitimate right to receive, and the workings of the Official Secrets Act. What shook me above all, especially in view of recent controversies, was to receive a letter a few days ago from a lady who was protesting about nuclear waste management policy. She concluded:
"After all Dr. Cunningham you wouldn't have it in your constituency would you?"
Recent events in the British nuclear industry and the appalling failure of technology at Chernobyl underline what many of us already knew: we need new political techniques to deal with technologies such as nuclear power. The experience of the past three weeks has starkly demonstrated that we also need new international agreements. The development of nuclear power has begun
580
to outstrip public acceptance and understanding of what it involves, and without public acceptance of its operation there can be no future for the civil nuclear industry.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Have the events of the past three weeks made the hon. Gentleman change his view, as expressed in various journals last month, that in principle it is right for Britain and his party to continue with the nuclear policy participated in and developed by him when in government?
Dr. Cunningham: It is no secret that I have always believed that civil nuclear power has a legitimate role in any rational energy policy. Unlike the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, I shall not pretend to be all things to all people. I have already mentioned the essential requirements of openness, frankness and explicit information on such matters. It may be argued that the British industry has an outstanding safety record. However, that alone is not enough. By its very nature, nuclear power embodies hazards that are intangible and invisible. Radiation has no smell. It makes no noise. It has no colour. It does not rattle. It frightens people. and we must recognise that from the outset.
It is essential that the safety, health and environment of our people should be safeguarded by standards of scrutiny and oversight that are set far higher than for any other industry. We live in a world where nuclear power generates 15 per cent. of all electricity used. In some countries, including our neighbour France, the figure is between 50 and 70 per cent. At the end of last year there were 374 nuclear reactors in operation in 26 countries throughout the world. During 1985, 31 new reactors were brought into production. Construction on six more was commenced. Even in America new reactors have been commissioned, and the recently published United States energy policy review envisages 30 new reactors in the United States in the next decade.
It is important for people to realise that very close to us now, much closer than Sellafield or Dounreay, the French have a massive commitment to civil nuclear power in light water stations at Flamanville, Palluel. Pentlys and Gravelines. On one site alone, at Gravelines on the other side of the Channel, the French have more generating capacity than we have in the whole of England. That is the reality, and it will not change in the short or medium term. Thus, it is futile to pretend that Britain can isolate itself, industrially, environmentally, economically or in energy policy terms, from that reality.
No major industrial nation has decided to abandon nuclear power altogether. For those reasons, we consider it essential that the British Government should use all means available to secure international application of the highest known safety standards and management systems, and that they should urgently seek a review—I believe that the Minister touched on this—of the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant international bodies involved in the monitoring and control of civil nuclear power. We welcome the Government's commitment to such initiatives.
Britain, uniquely among major industrial nations. is for the present self-sufficient in energy resources. We already have an operating margin of almost 100 per cent. in electricity generating capacity. We thus have time to consider carefully the complex issues involved and to plan for the future. We say unequivocally in the Labour party

581
that the major factor involved in that planning should be an enhanced role for the British coal industry. That is why in the prevailing circumstances we see no case for proceeding with any expansion of civil nuclear power—no PWR at Sizewell or on any other site.
Today, the House is asked to approve the Government's actions in response to fallout in Britain from the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine. We cannot do so for several reasons. Although it was clear for several days that Britain might be affected by radioactive fallout, Ministers seemed totally unprepared for it when it actually came. A single Minister, effectively briefed, with a central unit should, from the outset, have been placed in charge of the announcement of explicit and coherent information to the people. The exact nature, levels and implications of the contamination should have been published from the beginning. That simply was not done. Even after the matter was first raised from this Dispatch Box, Ministers dithered. The Government's response was wholly inadequate to deal with genuine, predictable and justifiable anxieties. The information provided and the manner of its release served only to heighten confusion and to exacerbate concern.
Why, for example, were public notices not published in newspapers, which would have been by far the most effective way of getting accurate information quickly to people? Do the Government recognise that the consequences of the Chernobyl fallout for Britain were significant, and that statements such as, "It could not happen here," were totally misleading? It was important to achieve a balance between frankness about the situation and the need to calm unnecessary fears, but here again the balance was wrong. Statements from Ministers were in conflict with statements from the director of the National Radiological Protection Board, again confusing the media as well as the public, and thus sabotaging, before it could begin, the effective dissemination of accurate information.
We saw the Government incapable of responding satisfactorily to an emergency. We believe that there is a need to review comprehensively existing procedures and contingency plans for dealing with such incidents. Nor, I must emphasise, do we support self-righteous attacks on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union should be more open about the nature and scale of the accident, but the "holier than thou" approach of some people in the British Government—and, even worse, the attitude of the American Government—did nothing to help or to encourage the Soviet Union to be more open and forthcoming; indeed, they probably had the opposite effect.
We also have an opportunity today to debate the Government's first response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on radioactive waste. The report is most welcome as an authoritative statement of radioactive waste management policy in Britain. Given the wider welcome that it has received, not least from the Secretary of State for the Environment today, I suspect that the Secretary of State for Energy must bitterly regret his immediate destructive and critical comments about the report and what it had to say to the House and to the country.
The Select Committee is right to be highly critical of Government policy and the lack of a coherent research strategy for the storage of nuclear waste. In particular, I
582
welcome the recommendations on eliminating radioactive discharges to the marine environment, on the Drigg low-level waste site, on the need for research of deep geological sites, and on an end to unnecessary secrecy in the industry—all issues that for many years people in my constituency, the local authorities, trade unions and I myself have been urging on successive Governments at Westminster. The Select Committee is right to highlight the need for a better management performance in the industry and for better public information. We accept too the proposal for an economic reappraisal of the THORP project and believe that the necessary work on such a study should be commenced immediately.
The report of the Select Committee has been widely welcomed and commended by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, by the Central Electricity Generating Board, by British Nuclear Fuels plc and by environmental groups. The Select Committee makes clear the need to develop new policies for the storage and disposal of all nuclear waste. A decade ago the Royal Commission on environmental pollution highlighted the necessity for such policies. We accept the national need for a land-based site to take low-level radioactive waste generated in the nuclear industry, in the Health Service, in non-nuclear industry, in universities and in research establishments. The Government are right to accept the important recommendation that only low-level waste should be dealt with in that way.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being forthright and forthcoming about where he stands, on behalf of his party, on this important issue. My constituents need to be absolutely clear on where all political parties stand on the disposal of low level waste. May I get it critically clear? By what he has just said, does the hon. Gentleman accept, as I do not, and if he were Secretary of State for the Environment would he approve, a near-surface disposal facility, such as has been recommended by NIREX?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes is the answer to that. We have such a facility in my constituency now, as I assume the hon. Gentleman knows. The site at Drigg will not serve the country indefinitely. Anyone who believes that the problem can be ducked is not only deluding himself but is misleading his constituents. If we had no nuclear industry tomorrow, such a site would still be necessary to deal with waste from the Health Service, from research laboratories, from universities and from non-nuclear industry, as I have already made clear. Lest the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt, I have written to constituency Labour parties which have approached me on the issue, making that absolutely clear to them. The national requirement for such policies should not be ducked by anyone who has pretensions to be a serious political representative in the House.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister give way? [Laughter.] Quite a few of us have been affected by last Thursday's events, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point he was making, what does the hon. Gentleman say of the morality of hon. Members who are enthusiastic about civil nuclear power but who, when it comes to their constituencies, as we have seen with at least four Conservative Members, think that the waste and the danger should be taken somewhere else?
Dr. Cunningham: It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman that I share his views about the double standards inherent in such an approach. As I recall, all Conservative Members have supported the Government in their aggressive atitude on the development of civil nuclear power in Britain—an attitude, incidentally, which is of no consequence in reality, because the Government have not ordered even one nuclear power station in their seven years in office. Like much else about the Government's policy, their actions totally belie their rhetoric. That is the reality.
We cannot accept that a special development order procedure should be used to circumvent the proper involvement and legitimate interests of local authorities and the communities they represent. The Select Committee concluded, and we agree, that publicly "acceptable solutions are possible for the storage and disposal of waste in Britain, as they are in other countries. I remind the Government, however, that their own studies show that the disposal of low-level waste in a retrievable form adds little to the overall cost. That should be a feature of policy for near-surface disposal. The Select Committee makes clear the extent to which Britain lags behind Germany, Sweden, the United States of America and France in policies for radioactive waste storage and disposal. This is a serious failure of Government policy.
Little progress has been made over the last seven years. In one major respect we have gone backwards. The Government made a major error when in 1981 they abandoned a development research programme initiated by the Labour Government for the disposal of high-level waste. The Government took that decision against the advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and of the industry. The advisory committee has repeated its criticism of the decision recently in letters to Ministers. The current position in Britain is a direct consequence of that failure of Government policy.
Intermediate-level waste and highly active waste, when vitrified, should he stored and monitored in deep-mined facilities specially developed for the purpose. The proposal of the Select Committee that an experimental site be developed to test proposals, but not to be used for the actual disposal, is worthy of serious consideration. The environmental aspects of Magnox fuel reprocessing are dealt with in the report. Some people argue that reprocessing should end.
We cannot deal with the different problems of environmental protection simply by deciding to close industries. Nor should Socialists accept that we can protect the environment by undermining the economic and social well-being of our communities. I have long argued that discharges from Sellafield should be eliminated. The recently announced new controls are welcome, and the much-improved performance of the industry on discharges is long overdue, but a target date for the elimination of discharges into the sea should be set by the Government.
Mr. Lyell: On lower and intermediate levels of waste such as those placed at Drigg, is the hon. Gentleman content with the broad structure of the facility at Drigg, which drains through to the sea? Does he envisage that being updated? If so, would he still have a fail-safe drainage to the sea?
Dr. Cunningham: No. I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have been anything but content with
584
facilities at Drigg for some time. I am sure that he is aware that an announcement was made several months ago to upgrade the facility at Drigg—a decision that was long overdue. I emphasise that, even with the compacting of waste, the site at Drigg has a finite life and we cannot continue indefinitely cramming more and more waste and radioactive material into it.
I was discussing the reprocessing of Magnox fuel. About 2,000 tonnes of Magnox fuel from British programmes await reprocessing. During the next few years, about 1,000 tonnes per annum will result from Britain's Magnox stations. BNFL is contracted to deal with the material on behalf of British generating boards. Any necessary decommissioning of aging Magnox power stations will add significantly to those totals. In those circumstances, suggestions that early closure of the plant is desirable or possible are frequently misleading
Dry storage is not a better alternative, even if it were possible. Nor would public opinion readily welcome or accept a proliferation of stores for highly radioactive, long-lived nuclear fuel elements around the country. There is now deep public concern in Britain about nuclear power, waste disposal, siting of reactors and accidents. It is unlikely that people would accept that we should further complicate the position by dispersing more and more radioactive fuel around the country. Surely even this Government have learnt that we urgently need a freedom of information Act to ensure the fullest possible and best-informed debate. Those aspects of the Official Secrets Act applying to civil nuclear power should be removed. I reiterate the Labour party's commitment to that action.
We also require the urgent completion of Magnox safety reviews and the publication of the relevant documents. We remain committed to a ban on sea dumping of radioactive waste. The Labour party supports proposals for the inclusion of local authority members, trade unionists and environmentalists on the boards of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and NIREX.
I emphasise that we remain totally opposed to the construction of a pressurised water reactor. We are immediately committed to halting the production of weapons grade material in British civil nuclear power stations or, for that matter, in any other facility. Labour opposes the introduction of the fast reactor and emphasises the need for a full public inquiry into the proposed reprocessing plant at Dounreay.
We should ensure that the nuclear installations inspectorate is strengthened and that control of the nuclear industry and all the bodies which oversee it is examined and, where possible, rationalised.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: After reading the evidence in other reports, I, too, oppose the idea of the British development of the PWR system, but that is not to rubbish the report that we expect this autumn from Professor Bill Hall, who is one of our most reputable nuclear engineers. Professor Hall, who is the excellent engineering assessor attached to Layfield, will write the report on PWR. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has dismissed the report without seeing it. He is not only criminalising British nuclear engineers, but rubbishing the people who have put much work into PWR development. On the basis of other reports, I agree that we should not

585
go ahead with it, but my hon. Friend should say that he has every respect for the engineering work that has been done by Professor Bill Hall.
Secondly, I am—[Interruption.] I am talking about Professor Bill Hall's reputation as a leading nuclear engineer. Let us not treat engineers in that way. That is the reason why we are in our present position, with trivia coming out—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Interventions must be brief. There is great pressure in this debate.
Dr. Cunningham: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but I have not rubbished in advance the Layfield report; indeed, I have not even mentioned it. What I have said—I said it at the beginning of my speech and I repeat it now—is that, in present circumstances, we envisage no requirement to order civil nuclear power stations. I shall read the Layfield report with much interest, as will my hon. Friend.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does that mean that the next Labour Government will order no more nuclear power stations?
Dr. Cunningham: In case there is any misunderstanding, I shall repeat what I said. We envisage no case for ordering any nuclear power stations in the prevailing circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] At the risk of lengthening my speech unnecessarily, I should deal with the mirth of members of a party which, when in government, did not order one nuclear power station for nearly 25 years. The joke is a little misplaced. In the present circumstances of energy self-sufficiency, the strength of the British coal industry and grave public uncertainty about the nuclear industry and all its operations, I cannot understand why Conservative Members should suddenly be worried about a nuclear order.
Mr. John Hannam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way. I am nearing the end of my speech. I have given way generously to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Single-issue campaigners can and often do ignore inconvenient complexities. We cannot do so, nor can we in modern industrial societies regard technology as unthinkable. The Labour party does not espouse the zero economic growth views of some environmentalists. We believe that improved international economic performance is a vital necessity for millions of people facing poverty, malnutrition and disease. The reality is that we must learn to deal not only with the existing technologies but with the developing momentum of new technologies, new scientific discoveries, that are coming at us literally from all over the world.
In his excellent and widely praised work "The Ascent of Man", Jacob Bronowski wrote at the conclusion something which is very apposite to the present circumstances:
"We are all afraid—for our confidence, for the future, for the world. That is the nature of human imagination. Yet every people, every civilisation, has gone forward because of its engagement with what it has set itself to do. The personal
586
commitment of a man or a women to their children, the intellectual commitment and the emotional commitment working together as one has made the ascent of man."
In dealing with these complex and controversial issues, we should bear those words in mind.
5.30 pm
Sir Hugh Rossi: I recognise that, because of the widespread concern caused by the disaster in Russia. it has been necessary to widen the debate beyond a consideration of the interim response by the Government to those parts of the report on radioactive waste by the Select Committee on the Environment that are relevant to the development of near-surface facilities for the disposal of radioactive waste.
Although the amendments that were tabled in my name to protect the position of the Committee have not been accepted, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for his assurance that the motion does not pre-empt a considered reply and discussion of those parts of the report that remain unanswered, in particular the vital questions that we have raised concerning the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels.
In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, I shall seek to confine my remarks to the Committee's report and the Government response. However, I cannot let this moment pass without expressing a personal deep feeling of sympathy, which I am sure is shared by Members in all parts of the House, for those individual Russian men, women and children who are directly facing the horrifying consequence of the nuclear failure at Chernobyl. It is something that we do not wish to see happen again anywhere in the world, and above all not in our country.
When harnessing the forces of nature for its own benefit, mankind has always placed itself at risk. If there is carelessness, if accidents happen, human tragedy inevitably follows. In the handling of the energies of the atom, the significance lies in the magnitude of the possible catastrophe and the lasting effects, possibly for generations. It is this thought that underlines the report of the Committee. If the greatest possible care is not taken in handling the waste products of nuclear energy, these could pollute the human environment and place succeeding generations at risk for literally thousands of years.
Our recommendations underline the need for the strictest possible classification of waste in accordance with its radioactive and toxic qualities, and the actual disposal route of all radioactive waste must then follow according to its classification. Thus, a main recommendation is that near-surface disposal facilities should be used only for low-level waste, with a half-life of 30 years or less, containing no alpha-bearing particles, and particularly no toxic radionuclides. If this classification is followed and there is the strictest monitoring and sorting of waste before disposal, the Committee sees no risk in near-surface depositories that are properly engineered for maximum containment.
This is particularly relevant to the four sites chosen by NIREX for exploratory purposes. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendation that near-surface facilities should not be used for intermediate-level waste, even though the industry itself

587
and its scientists are of the view that short-lived intermediate-level waste is safe in properly engineered depositories.
However, as hon. Members will have heard, from the county councils of Bedfordshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire—
Sir Bernard Braine: And Essex.
Sir Hugh Rossi: And Essex: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend—there will be continuing and deep local opposition to the use of any particular site for disposal purposes, and this opposition is bound to be supported by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in those areas.
All this is perfectly understandable. In the course of its studies the Committee identified what we have chosen to call the NIMBY syndrome—the "not in my back yard" argument—which runs, "It may be necessary to put the stuff somewhere, but here is not the place to do it." I think that it will be difficult to find any locality where the inhabitants will say, "By all means dump your muck in my backyard—we recognise that it is for the national good." Altruism rarely overturns self-interest to that extent. I believe that the situation would arise whatever kind of waste was to be dumped in a locality which has not accustomed to being a depository for waste.
The natural reluctance to accept radioactive waste is latched on to by those who would prefer no nuclear energy to be produced in this country. They may be the coal interests, the oil interests or those genuinely fearful of the consequences and risks to the human environment. They will do the best that they can to encourage local opposition as part of their campaign against the use of nuclear power.
The continuance of the use of nuclear power was not the issue before the Select Committee, as energy policy lies outside its remit. We were concerned—and this was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—by the fact that even if all nuclear power stations were ordered to cease operation forthwith there would be the neeecl to decommission about 34 reactors, with all their ancillary buildings, equipment and facilities. In addition, there are substantial quantities of waste accumulated over 40 years, which still require disposal. A safe place has to be found for all this. Ultimately geology—rock and subsoil formation—must determine where this will be. The overriding consideration is the possibility of maximum containment and the absence of permeating water that can carry dangerous matter one knows not where.
Undoubtedly those communities living in geological areas suitable for radioactive waste disposal will feel aggrieved. They will be asked to accept something that they do not want or like in the national interest. It was the Committee's view that such communities should be compensated by the nation as a whole for the disadvantages that they will suffer in their environment, and possibly even in the values of their properties. Precedents exist for this in the Land Compensation Act 1973, the underlying policy of which I advocated strongly many years ago.
Under that Act, those whose houses are affected by public works, such as new motorway constructions, receive home-loss payments, grants for double glazing and some financial compensation for the loss that they have
588
suffered. The concept is inherent in section 52 agreements under the planning Acts, which I advocated also many years ago. Under the agreements, developers make some provision for the benefit of the local community. such as providing new infrastructure, in return for planning permission. These are concepts which should be built upon and extended, espcially when we are dealing with such a publicly sensitive matter as radioactive waste.
I am a little disappointed that the Government have not been more forthcoming on he question of compensation. They have merely said that they are giving the matter serious consideration. They would stand substantially more chance of carrying public opinion with them if they were seen to be anxious to produce safe systems and to be fair and, indeed, generous to those who may be disadvantaged as a result of these operations. They might even save money in the long term, by having somewhat shorter public inquiries with fewer objectors.
Public anxiety cannot be dismissed in any circumstances, and the Government must do everything to allay it. In its report, the Select Committee was critical of some of the past attitudes of the nuclear industry. It is understandable for scientists and for professionals generally to assume that others understand what they themselves regard as everyday knowledge and with which they are working the whole time.They are assured and satisfied in their own minds that what they are doing is acceptable and safe, but they have failed to communicate that knowledge in an understandable form to the public at large in order to make them realise that perhaps humanity can benefit from the use of nuclear power and that these enormous energies can be harnessed safely. We must show that we are using systems that are absolutely safe. That must be demonstrated.
A number of questions remain unanswered. It has been said, probably with some justification, that it is not possible to put into effect the Select Committee's recommendation on the absolute exclusion of alpha-bearing waste. Nothing is said about toxic radionuclides, which we feel present as great a danger as alpha-hearing particles. There should be monitoring and exclusion if low-level waste is to be put into near-surface depositories, and it would be useful to know the Government's thoughts on the classification of such waste. Their response is silent on this issue.
The Select Committee was extremely impressed by the work that it saw in other countries in both the compaction and pyrolysis of low-level waste, which is the incineration of waste in the absence of air. Industry in Britain was non-commital when we asked it whether these methods were to be used, or should be used, in this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an encouraging statement this afternoon and has said that compaction is to be used in 1987. It is vital that every means possible within our technology to reduce the volume of low-level waste is introduced so that the amount of land required for its disposal is correspondingly reduced and all the difficulties that may otherwise arise in a number of localities throughout the country can thereby be avoided.
The industry is issuing separate responses to the Select Committee's report, and these are coming in thick and fast. We have had responses from the CEGB. and UKAEA, the SSEB, BNFL and NIREX, and all appear to welcome many aspects of the report, especially our recommendation on what we call the Rolls-Royce

589
approach. The Government do not seem to have made much reference to this recommendation. Basically, it implies that every expense must be incurred and the latest technology used to produce facilities that are completely up to date—not holes in the ground, like Drigg—for the engineered containment of waste, and the public must see that this is being done. It is only in this way that reassurance can be given to the public that the Government are concerned about their safety.
The industry appears to have accepted the philosophy that containment, rather than dilute and disperse, is important. This seems to be something of a shift in its philosophy. Are the Government entirely in accord with the concept of containment, rather than that of dilute and disperse? Do they welcome it as quite a dramatic shift in emphasis as a consequence of my Committee's report?
I wish to express my thanks to the Government and the Opposition for the warm welcome that they have given to my Committee's report. I thank all outside commentators who, without exception, have regarded the report as a serious contribution to knowledge in this sector. The report marks the conclusion of about nine months' hard work. I wish to extend my thanks to all the members of my Committee. I thank them for their extremely hard work in supporting the production of a unanimous report. I thank also our specialist advisers, Dr. John Mather of the National Environment Research Council, and Mr. Walter Patterson, for their invaluable help and advice throughout. Last but not least, my thanks go to Mr. Clive Bennett and other Committee Clerks, who coped cheerfully with the burdens placed upon them and without whose help it would not have been possible to produce the report.
5.48 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is a wide-ranging subject and in the brief time available to me I shall concentrate on some key issues relating to the future of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. In the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, I must say that I warned at the time of the publication of the report that there was likely to be what I described as a green backlash against the further development of nuclear power. The Chernobyl disaster has intensified and accelerated that reaction.
A number of concerns have been raised, to which the Government must respond during the debate, report on in future and bring back to the House. A clear concern of the Select Committee was nuclear waste disposal. Our view over a number of years has been that the nuclear industry, despite the fact that it has had substantial backing over a long period, and, on its own admission, no commercial constraints placed upon it, has not been able to come up with acceptable ways of disposing of nuclear waste. That fact in itself has been enough to justify my party's view that there should be no further expansion of the nuclear power programme while the problem remains unresolved. If the House agreed that we should not proceed with the use of nuclear power, we might find some means of making progress towards disposing of the waste that has so far been created.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: We are all most anxious to discover the policy of the alliance about the future of
590
nuclear power, but perhaps we are not quite so anxious as my constituents because the National Nuclear Corporation, which exists only to design nuclear power stations, employs more than 1,200 people in my constituency and another 600 people close by. Furthermore, 3,000 to 4,000 people are employed by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Risley. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the alliance candidate in my constituency will endorse the policy that he is now espousing, or does he think that, with the usual gutless opportunism which is the hallmark of his party, she might find a way out of the difficulty?
Mr. Bruce: I am inclined to treat that intervention with the contempt that it deserves, but I appreciate that the industry is important to the people who are employed in it and that it is vital to our future. Its environmental impact is also important. We have to look at the wider issue of the principles involved. If coal miners and others can be retrained, so can scientists. They can be redirected into other areas of research—a point that I intend to deal with, if I am allowed to proceed with my speech.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: No.
We are opposed to Sizewell—we believe that it is unjustified—and we have consistently opposed Torness. We have reached the stage where we should begin to decomission the older Magnox stations which are reaching the end of their useful life. The point has already been made that, even if we wanted to do so, there is no possibility of stopping the nuclear industry in its tracks overnight. The problems involved in decomissioning and disposing of high-level nuclear waste would intensify our immediate problems. We cannot deal with those problems all at once: we can only start that process. It seems to the alliance that we should begin that process by saying that we should not continue to build nuclear power stations.
My second point relates to the Government's motion. In our view, it is complacent. The Government's reaction to the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster does not accord with the terms of their motion. The public have been confused, and in some cases public confidence has been damaged by the Government's utterances. People in my constituency have told me that they have no confidence in the Government's assurances. The Government could not even get the telephone number right when they announced that they were setting up a hot line. The Scottish Office had to correct a press statement about the radiation levels that had been announced. Understandably, people were concerned when they were told that they could drink milk but not rain-water. That was explained subsequently, but it was not explained at the time of the announcement.
Radiation levels may not have been dramatically above normal and they were within the safety limits. However, given our limited knowledge, people are entitled to ask what are safe limits, especially as the standards that we apply are different from those that have been applied by other countries. They are taking more stringent precautions. It is not surprising, therefore, that the public lack confidence in the Government's response to the disaster. There was ample warning of the drift of the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl, yet it appears that the Government were not adequately prepared in advance.

591
They were unable to inform the public about what they needed to know when the cloud from Chernobyl finally arrived.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman knows that this motion deals with the disposal of nuclear waste. He has not yet told us about the Liberal party's policy on the disposal of nuclear waste. Does he favour the disposal, in a near-surface facility, of low-level nuclear waste, to which recommendation the Liberal party's Chief Whip put his name? Did the Chief Whip vote with the authority of the Liberal party on that matter?
Mr. Bruce: My understanding is that my hon. Friend did not do so.
Mr. Hogg: Oh yes he did.
Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend sought to amend the report to make it stronger than it is. I have already said that this country and local authorities will not make progress in dealing with this problem until there is a responsible Government who say, "We are not prepared to expand the nuclear industry until we can deal with disposal."
Mr. Hogg: Answer the question.
Mr. Bruce: The answer is no.
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bruce: No, I will not. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Bruce: I am speaking in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as energy spokesman for my party, and I am stating my party's policy. My hon. Friend, the Chief Whip, is capable of speaking for himself. If he wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way.
Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to refer him to the amendment that I moved to paragraph 60. It was one of many amendments. If they will read the words of that amendment, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) will realise that we asked for the deletion of the words:
"we are convinced that safe final disposal routes are available in the United Kingdom."
That amendment was supported by both Conservative and Labour Members. That amendment showed that we are opposed to the disposal of either intermediate or low-level waste on any site in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement by the Liberal party's Chief Whip is not accurate. The two relevant paragraphs are 74 and 99—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for debate. It is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be interested to know how the Government Chief Whip manages to reconcile his position on nuclear waste with that of the Government. At least the position that we are adopting is consistent. [Interruption.] That is most certainly the case. Nobody in my party proposes the building of new nuclear power stations, but we all agree that provision must be made for the disposal of nuclear waste. The position that we adopt is consistent but the Government's position is dishonest. For a member of the Cabinet to adopt such a position is fundamentally unacceptable.
592
The public have no confidence in the Government's reaction to the drift of radiation from Chernobyl to the United Kingdom. The chaos and confusion in the Government have caused real concern.
That brings me to another point: whether Britain would be able to cope with a major radiation leak from a British nuclear installation, especially in view of the United Kingdom's population density. When he replies to the debate, will the Secretary of State for Energy tell the House whether measures are in hand to provide uncontaminated water to the population of the United Kingdom in the event of a major radiation leak? 'The House may be interested to know that at the weekend I 'was in Orkney. I was advised that there were no iodine tablets in the islands, although it is just across the Pentland firth from Dounreay. If there were an accident at Dounreay, one wonders how the islanders would be expected to react.
The Government, and others, give assurances about Britain's high safety standards and record. I do not doubt either the sincerity or the competence of our nuclear power scientists and engineers, but at the end of the day McPherson's law applies. That is, McPherson's piece always lands jeelly-side doon. That means that if something is likely to go wrong, it will. Two weeks ago the Chernobyl disaster demonstrated that the scale and character of a nuclear disaster is quite different from any other kind of disaster. If the objectives of the nuclear industry were fulfilled, we could be talking about risks of that kind from more than 80 nuclear installations in the United Kingdom.
As for the general debate on nuclear power, the proponents of nuclear power point out that it is economic and clean. Both of those factors are open to dispute. The full cost of nuclear power has not been met by the electricity industry. Much of it has been defence funded and the costs of decomissioning and waste disposal, although they have been taken into account, are likely to be much more substantial. Many of the stations that have been built have been running below capacity and have not therefore been run at full temperature.
The argument that the French have abundant cheap nuclear power is only French Government policy, not an economic fact. The capital is not being repaid: electricity in France is not viable in any proper economic sense. I understand that there is a capital debt of £20 billion, on which it is managing to pay only the interest.
We must question the cleanliness of nuclear power because of the problems of reprocessing and waste disposal. It is all very well for assurances to be given about Sellafield, Trawsfynydd, Hinkley Point and Dungeness B, and to say, as the Secretary of State did, that incidents had been a minor, not a major, threat to safety. The question in the minds of the public is that if there have been minor incidents—and there have been more than enough of them during the past 30 years—there is a risk of a major incident eventually.
It is said that nuclear power is essential because alternatives will soon run out and that they are environmentally less acceptable and politically vulnerable. On the political front, the expensive and damaging miners' strikes that have been a feature of recent Governments, especially Tory Governments, are essentially the consequence of the confrontation politics of the Labour and Tory parties when in government or in opposition. The alliance is determined to bring that to an end—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. In any case, the

593
argument rather falls down because if we retain the fuel flexibility and then the power workers strike, we are in deep trouble.
The Liberal party believes that investment in energy efficiency, improvements to the environmental acceptability and the efficiency of coal and oil, coupled with the development of alternatives, could meet all our energy needs and would allow for the gradual changeover to a non-nuclear energy mix. That is attainable in the United Kingdom.
Renewable energy resources have not had the investment from which nuclear power has benefited. Indeed, Britain has just cut its wave research programme, just as the Norwegians are expanding theirs. We strongly believe that the greatest alternative energy resource—the "fifth fuel"—has the advantage of being cheap and environmentally sound. It is called conservation. A crash programme of energy efficiency over a decade could substantially reduce the need to build any new type of power station. At the same time, we could divert the funds for nuclear power into research to deal with the nuclear waste problem—which we accept must be dealt with—and into alternative renewable energy resources, such as geothermal, wind, biomass and tidal.
Because of our other resources, because of the alternatives that we can develop and because of the substantial scope for energy efficiency, this country is not under pressure and has the time to develop a viable, non-nuclear energy policy that would provide the flexibility that we need at an acceptable cost, with minimum environmental risk and maximum public acceptability. That is the course that should be followed. Any responsible British Government would pursue that course.
6.3 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: We should not have been surprised by the Chernobyl disaster. I do not mean simply that the Soviet reactor was of a design that would never have been approved in the West, but that the Soviet system itself is inherently inefficient and incapable of letting its own people, let alone its neighbours, understand what is happening. Information is the lifeblood of democracy; it can spell death to a dictatorship.
However, it would be facile to think that the Soviets are alone in maintaining an atmosphere of secrecy about technological risks or in camouflaging awkward issues. There is nothing new in secretive attitudes, even in our country. It took me 10 years to obtain a public inquiry into excessive concentrations of liquefied gas, chemicals and oil in and around my constituency. In 1974 I had to make a speech that was the longest from the Back Benches for 146 years in order to focus attention on the plight of my constituents. We got a public inquiry which came down on our side, but it took another seven years before there was a reduction in the volume of risk for the people of Canvey Island.
Our free society did not prevent the Aberfan disaster in 1966, although all those concerned with the control of that death-dealing tip, which cost the lives of 116 children and 28 adults, knew the risks, but failed to see what might happen and to take avoiding action. Our free society did not prevent the managerial stupidity in 1974 which led to
594
the blowing up of the newest chemical plant in Europe, at Flixborough, which killed 29 workers and injured 40 others.
The truth is that even without Chernobyl our nuclear industry would have had to address itself to the question how to convince the public that its plants and procedures are inherently safe. Given the fact that the industry, both here and in the West generally, has been relatively troublefree—for example, during the past 10 years there have been a regrettable 399 deaths in the pits, while there have been only nine in the nuclear industry, none of which was due to radiation—and given the fact that it does not compare in any way with the atmospheric pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels or the manufacture of chemicals, the task would seem to the layman to be easy.
In other Western countries there does not appear to be anything like the fuss and bother that there is in this country. We have already been reminded in the debate that France has built 40 power stations without any clamour from its people. By last year it was producing 60 per cent. of its electricity requirements from nuclear plants, which is the highest percentage in the world. It is especially significant that the French are able to export cheap electricity and to give their own industry a billion-pound advantage over ours.
In this country there is a difference—an underlying anxiety. There is no ducking that issue. A revealing passage in paragraph 220 of the report refers to a study of a nuclear energy exhibition, on which £50,000 of public money had been spent. It states:
"the people who went into the exhibition were slightly more worried than average, but when they came out they were even more worried."
That does not appear to me to be the right sort of public relations. Why cannot the facts be presented in a way that enables a balanced judgment to be made? The report correctly states that the industry must make positive efforts to give as much information as possible to the public. In the end, however, the Committee considered that
"the industry's actions alone will convince the public, not its words. The disorder of the Sellafield site, the crudeness of Drigg, the remoteness of NIREX: these have created far more damage than any amount of facts and figures and public relations work will ever repair."
Those are harsh words, but in a democracy there cannot be a nuclear industry without public acceptance. That is really what the debate is all about, and it underlines the importance of the criticism that I must make about the extraordinary behaviour of the industry, and of NIREX in particular, over the disposal of nuclear waste, which has left the public living in the areas likely to be affected both suspicious and fearful.
Consider the business of finding repositories for what is described as intermediate—as though that was not dangerous, which is not really the case—and low-level nuclear waste. The industry's agent, NIREX, produced criteria for such disposal. It said that there must be regard to population density, to accessibility to conservation and to geology. That is excellent, and exactly what we would expect, but the site chosen at Bradwell in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and not far from my constituency does not satisfy a single one of those criteria.
Bradwell is close to areas of rapid population growth in both north-east and south-east Essex. It is not served by a railway, and existing roads are wholly inadequate to take 128 movements a week. On the other hand, believe it or

595
not, it is in an area designated as an important international site of special scientific interest. For full measure, the site is in an area which is historically vulnerable to sea flooding. If that is not enough, it lies adjacent to a fault line which has seen four earthquakes since the 17th century. The epicentre of the last earthquake in 1884, which killed people, was only four miles away.
Those who selected this site for investigation did so before consulting Essex county council, which could have told them the facts. If they had come to me, I could have told them the facts. I am soaked in the history of my county. I love my county. I know about it. If they had asked anybody who knows anything about Essex, they would have been told the facts. How they could select that site for investigation, and how they will ever convince anyone that they knew what they were doing baffles me.
It is true that, since I made those revelations in the debate on 13 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that intermediate-level nuclear waste will not be buried at Bradwell or at any of the other sites. I should think not. If NIREX had any sense, it would abandon the proposal altogether. If it is committed to following this particular path, I am in favour of a full public inquiry as soon as possible, and I predict that it will reduce confidence in the industry, not enhance it. That is the foolishness of the step that has been taken without proper consultation, reconnaissance and research.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is present to reply to the debate, because my next point concerns him. In the debate on 13 March I complained on behalf of Essex county council and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip that a request by the council for details of the borings carried out before the erection of the Bradwell nuclear power station, which is adjacent to the site chosen for the storage of waste, had not been met. Hon. Members will appreciate the relevance of having that information. I demanded that the details should be given. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment agreed.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has only one minute.
Sir Bernard Braine: In April I received an undated letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who said:
"I am happy to say that CEGB have advised me that they have now sent to Essex County Council, via Nirex UK Ltd., copies of cross-sections of boreholes made for the foundations of Bradwell Power Station."
This morning that information had still not been received. That is not good enough.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
6.13 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Such large questions have been raised during the debate by right hon. and hon. Members that I hope the Government will arrange an early time when we can have a much longer, fuller debate. Obviously, a whole range of hon. Members from different sides with different points of view wish to participate.
The more one listens to the speeches from both sides, the more one realises that they underline the importance of the sentence in the Opposition's amendment which states that the House
596
"recognises the need for an urgent and comprehensive safety review of Britain's existing nuclear power stations."
The amendment insists that no further steps should be taken to expand the industry before that happens. That, surely, is essential. In the light of recent events it is utterly deplorable for the Government to ask the House to vote against that amendment tonight.
I speak as a long-term supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and I have always thought that it is both possible and wise to draw a distinction between nuclear production for military purposes and its production for peaceful purposes. I have always thought that that is desirable, in the paramount interest of stopping the nuclear arms race. However, some recent events, particularly the tragic event in the Soviet Union, alter the picture. From the reports of the scientific correspondent of the Financial Times—I think that he must be telling the truth—it appears that both military and civilian production is carried out at Chernobyl. I do not doubt that that also applies in many other places, and that should be taken into account.
When the appalling tragedy at Chernobyl first happened, there was a tendency in some quarters for some people to attribute it to the unique wickedness of the Soviet Union, rather than to the unique peril of nuclear development, which is where the world should have concentrated its attention and energies. However, as the days have passed and the information has become clearer. even the Minister in today's debate has adopted a different tone. That is an advance.
Even before Chernobyl, events were developing in such a way that the House and the country were beginning to look at the matter differently. That arose partly because Conservative Members were prepared to put their shaky seats at risk, which underlined the fact that they would not accept at face value the assurances given by Ministers and others about the absolute safety of the proposals. Indeed, we have moved rapidly since then.
Ministers and the general public often tend to misapprehend science. At one moment they treat scientific evidence almost as if it were absolutely believable, and the next as if it were absolutely unbelievable. There is a balance between the two, which we need if we are to have a sensible policy. The Government, in their rejection of some parts of the Committee's recommendations, and in many other ways, have failed to understand the deepening fears and anxieties of the public on these matters, and to reflect them in this short debate.
I was impressed, as I think many others were, by Yorkshire Television's pictures, which appeared shortly before Christmas, showing the new estimates of the danger of cancer and leukemia in areas with nuclear plants. I shall not go into the details now, as I wish to say much in a short time. Anyone who looks at the letters which I sent to the Prime Minister, and which were available for publication, although she did not choose to publish them, and at the details in The Lancet on 14 February, which showed that there was a greater danger in some of those areas, particularly for children aged under four, will see that the figures seem to illustrate and almost to prove that. I demanded that that matter should be part of the inquiry. and I demand that it should be part of the major inquiry for which the Opposition are calling now.
An even more alarming aspect of the whole matter has been revealed in the developments of the past few days, particularly in response to what happened in the Soviet Union. One of the most important accounts to emerge in

597
the following days—it has not appeared much in the British press, and, indeed, it has not been fully published in Washington—is a report to which Senator John Glenn referred. His views should not be dismissed, as he is an authority on many of these questions. Within a few days of knowing of the disaster and the overwhelming tragedy in the Soviet Union, he ensured that a much fuller account of the report in which he and others were engaged should be made public to the world.
That report showed that nuclear power plants in 14 countries had experienced 151 significant nuclear safety incidents since 1971.
"What this means,"
said another Senator in the Committee,
"is that accidents are occurring out there but that these countries have been lucky so far, just like the Russians were lucky until now and like we've been lucky."
Britain has also been lucky, but the luck broke for one of the great powers engaged in nuclear production.
The report went on to describe what will develop if no proper international control is exerted. It said that 306
"nuclear power plants are operating in the world with a total of 3,100 reactor-years of experience.
Another 224 reactors are under construction or on order. While the rate of new construction has slowed in much of the industrial world, it is rising in the less-developed countries."
Can we not understand what the perils are for the world as a whole if that plan proceeds? The way in which the radiation has crossed frontiers in the past two weeks should impress upon us how much danger there is.
Much of the dissemination of this knowledge is taking place in defiance of treaties that have already been agreed, according to Senator Glenn, who has every right to be respected on such matters. He correctly claims that the Reagan Administration
"had not abided by a provision of the nuclear non-proliferation pact of 1978 that requires the Government to work closely with countries that buy US-made reactors to ensure safety."
Along with the measures in the Opposition's amendment there must be far greater exertion on the international front than the Government have shown any understanding of, or any willingness to undertake. It is extremely difficult for a Government who have not shown the slightest interest in a comprehensive test ban or in taking international measures in any other sectors to try to control the dissemination of such knowledge, to turn round and say that we must now embark on a full international programme. However, nothing but that can save the world in these circumstances.
In the history of mankind there has never been such a display of cosmic arrogance as these super-powers have displayed—often, I am sad to say, with the eager compliance of Her Majesty's Government and Ministers, who show no understanding of this matter. The other countries which are under threat from such nuclear production have a right to be heard, and it is high time that our Government responded to what they are saying.
6.23 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: Following the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I take up his theme about public opinion. He is right to say that at the moment there is no public confidence in the state of the nuclear industry. I came to this issue nearly a year ago when my constituency was first threatened,
598
through a rumour which, in spite of denials and counter-denials, turned out to be true. I recognise that it is incumbent on any hon. Member who takes the stance that I have taken on this issue to accept that, if the proposal to dispose of low-level nuclear waste in a near-surface facility is unacceptable for his constituency, by definition it follows, if he is to accept the injunction from the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, that he also acknowledges that it is not an appropriate facility in any other constituency. I fully accept that I have to address that responsibility.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was frank when I asked where his party stands on this issue. My constituents are listening closely to the debate, which I suspect will be relayed later this afternoon and tomorrow through the air waves. I must address my attention to the question of what to do with the nuclear waste and to the future of nuclear power.
I am not in a position to pass a vote of confidence or no confidence in the nuclear power industry or its expansion. However, I know that we cannot pursue a nuclear policy without consent. Plainly, there is no consent for the expansion of the nuclear industry. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy does not believe that, I invite him to come to my constituency and share a platform with me. He will find, wherever I go and whatever the political opinion of those whom I am addressing, that there is no consent for an expansion of the nuclear power industry. It is plainly wrong, until there has been a national debate or an opportunity for pause and reflection and until the Government are able to take public opinion with them and reassure it, to go ahead with expansion. I accept that my stance towards the Government's nuclear policy requires me to deal truthfully and openly with the House and my constituents.
I deal, first, with nuclear waste disposal. I acknowledge that nuclear waste is produced, and will continue to be produced, from nuclear power, whatever policy this or any other Government may take. I am assisted in addressing the problem of what to do with nuclear waste by the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which posed alternatives. It took evidence from organisations, which suggested alternatives, such as the method proposed by ENSEC Ltd for intermediate radioactive waste disposal and the pipeline operated waste energy disposal method. The Select Committee's report was scathing about the Government's scant regard to those alternatives.
The Select Committee, in paragraph 99, states:
"Considerably greater emphasis must be given in research, development and policy to sea-bed options, especially to the use of tunnels under the sea-bed from land."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has disposed of the question of intermediate-level waste for these four facilities. I am grateful to him for that, but if he thought that he could buy my support and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) or of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), he is mistaken. All that has happened is that they, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who have been marvellous in the support that they have given to me in this campaign, have felt their attitudes harden. We and the general public whom we represent

599
recognise that, having won a victory and made the case on political grounds against the scientists about intermediate-level waste, we need not stop at that. Why should the politicians who represent those areas not also succeed on political grounds against a shallow burial facility for low-level waste?
My constituency—I am sure that I speak for the other three constituencies involved—is not in the business of dividing and ruling and putting the burden on somebody else. I would not want to put any hon. Member through what I have had to contend with during the past year. The Government must recognise that there is no public consent for the disposal of nuclear waste on land in a shallow burial facility. The sooner they face that reality, the sooner they will be able to buy public confidence in their nuclear policy. I must confess that even I did not fully recognise—although I had a good idea—how much the feelings of my constituents, whatever their political party, had matured following the announcement of the proposed nuclear waste site. The Government, whom I support, ignore that lack of public confidence at their peril.
Many hon. Members, except those who have had to address this subject—for example, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who represents people working in the nuclear industry and those hon. Members who face the threat of nuclear waste disposal in their constituencies—are not sufficiently aware of the depth and strength of public feeling. Until the public's feelings are acknowledged, the Government will not succeed in purchasing public confidence, even if they try to do so via compensation. We need public consent.
I reiterate the commitment that I made on 21 February this year—it is in the Offical Report and is immutable—that, so long as I am the Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I shall resist totally the idea of disposing of nuclear waste of any kind in my constituency.
6.31 pm
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I am passionately opposed to the existence of nuclear weapons, but I equally passionately support the idea of nuclear power. I am anti-nuclear weapons and pro-nuclear power. As a Socialist, I believe that there are profound, powerful social arguments in support of the development of nuclear power.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent should relate the fears that he has rightly expressed to his beloved India, of which he is a dear friend. India cannot survive the future in the absence of nuclear power. People talk about massive catastrophes in engineering development. Has my right hon. Friend forgotten what happened in 1979, when 15,000 Indians were killed when a dam burst in Gujarat? Most British newspapers did not mention that calamity. The Socialist alternative for Indians is not to build dams of that sort, but to build an industry which they can understand and can harness to meet their needs and achieve development. As a Socialist, I remind the House that a Socialist advance will occur only in times of affluence, not in times of poverty. The emergence of a Socialist society in Britain will come from affluence, not from poverty. We cannot have affluence in Britain in the absence of a nuclear power industry.
Imaginative ideas on what will happen in the next 20, 30 or 40 years have been pitched in to support the development of the nuclear power industry. Lord
600
Marshall, once the head of our nuclear industry, may have gone, but I say in his absence that the most important quality of genius is humility. He should not forget that, because the nuclear power industry's attitude to society generally has become arrogant. Aggressive conceit is a weakness of leadership, and Lord Marshall should remember that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to 150 significant incidents. We have all become obsessed with price comparisons. That is the very weakness of the industry. people involved in the nuclear industry work under great pressure to design safe reactors within cost constraints. Practically every one of those 150 significant incidents has been reported. The reports by the International Atomic Energy' Agency—including the report on Three Mile Island—bear out the fact that the problem lies with the quality of mechanical engineering. None of those incidents has been the result of a nuclear failure or a lack of nuclear understanding. They have all resulted from inadequate mechanical engineering or inadequate metallurgy. I have no doubt that Chernobyl will prove to be the result of inadequate mechanical engineering or inadequate metallurgy.
We should be designing reactors according to a belt-and-braces philosophy. What is good enough for Rolls-Royce is good enough for the nuclear industry. Rolls-Royce provides dual brake systems and dual injection pumps and, indeed, most reactors are designed with two of everything. However, further precautions are needed to ensure engineering quality. Nuclear engineers talk about the loss of coolants and so on, as being responsible for weaknesses in their plants. We should ensure, for example, that both the valves and the pumps used in nuclear plants are of much better quality. Superb pumps are included in the PWR equipment of nuclear submarines—those damnable things under the sea's surface which the House should decide today to abolish—and we should recognise the beauty and the quality of their design and use them as a basis for civil construction.
Let me give another example. Britain or any other country can make concrete that will last a thousand years. If such concrete was used with stainless steel, there should be no seepage from tanks for a thousand years. I would sack the engineers who designed and constructed concrete containers that leaked. Those responsible for the concrete structures that have leaked at Sellafield, and so on, should be sacked for that sort of nonsense. There is no call to cut corners and save money in that way.
One point stands out clearly—Britain cannot have its nuclear engineering on the cheap. We should not expect or demand that. There should be ministerial directives to designers to adopt a much safer attitude, so that the simple design problems in reactors do not occur.
The Labour party is in danger of becoming an anti-science party, and we must be careful about that. We must be careful also about what we say today. Last year the Labour party's annual conference decided that the Labour party would be anti-nuclear, but the debate was confused and mixed up. It was an emotive debate; reference was made to bombs, environmentalism and the miners' strike. If it had not taken place during the miners' strike, many of the remarks that were made about the nuclear industry generally would never have been made.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the high-level waste?
Mr. Atkinson: Waste is another aspect. Instead of just demanding the safe containment of high-level waste we should deal with waste in the proper way by initiating the fast reactor programme.
I intervened earlier to talk about fast reactors, because this is the most effective way of dealing with high-level nuclear waste products. We would not have our current problems if we had pursued a policy of that sort. Some environmentalists say that they even prefer acid rain to the nuclear industry. What sort of illogical nonsense is that? Surely we should design a society which does not call upon men to go down into the bowels of the earth to dig coal and be murdered by the demands of our society. We should devote ourselves to designing safer industry in which people can work without those dangers.
The Labour party must stop itself lurching from one emotional spasm to another. It must prevent itself taking an anti-science and anti-technology attitude. The Conservative party has already shown itself to be anti-manufacturing, because it pays not only lip service but total service to the needs of the City. As a result, it has become pro-money and anti-manufacturing. It has decided, probably quite rightly, that it is possible for it to make money but not possible for it to make anything else. That is what it has said, and if that is Conservative philosophy we must not go to the opposite extreme. We, in fact, must do everything to avoid it.
The tragedy is that unfortunately the debate so far has not been about nuclear engineering or nuclear science, but about all those other things. The great danger is not some China syndrome—it is the syndrome of propaganda. That is what we must avoid. We must talk about the essential needs of our country and the rest of the world. We must move towards a manageable nuclear industry which can solve many of our problems, especially those suffered by the Third world.
6.41 pm
Sir John Osborn: I intervene in the debate because I know that hydro-electricity and nuclear-powered electricity in other countries have given, for instance, electric steel melting and cheaper electricity than is available from coal-fired power stations. In Sheffield that is one of the causes of a high level of unemployment and destruction of an industry. I also intervene because a nuclear accident in one country now concerns the whole world.
I support the Government's motion, which deals with information on the accident at Chernobyl, safety of the complete nuclear cycle and, of course, the proposals to deal with radioactive waste. I agree with various aspects of the Opposition motion, such as safety, health and environmental protection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment covered that.
I agree with the need for a safety review of Britain's nuclear power stations, but what about power stations elsewhere in the world? The House must look outside Britain. I would also support some aspects of the alliance motion dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Layfield report.
Two weeks ago I learnt of the accident at Chernobyl, because I had flown into London without reading a newspaper, at the Institute of Energy lunch. Many leaders of the atomic energy industry were there, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I feared then that the sort of accident I had feared for some
602
35 years had taken place. The past two weeks have proved that. Of course public opinion has lost confidence in the nuclear energy industry, according to the opinion polls. There has been no shortage of comment from the media. There has been criticism by the greens and by the alliance, judging by the contribution of the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). It means that those who believe that a safe nuclear programme has a role to play must put their case as well.
In a few months I may find myself in a debate at a university dealing with the motion "That this house has no confidence in the nuclear energy industry." I shall he hard put to win that motion.
I came across a paper written by Walter Marshall, delivered to the International Atomic Energy Agency, on big nuclear accidents. That paper dealt with the effect of such accidents on hundreds of thousands of people. I believe that is what will happen in the Ukraine. Therefore, my sympathy goes out to those people. Walter Marshall pointed out that when a jumbo jet crashes we expect 300 to 400 deaths. If it were to crash on a crowded city, the death toll would be much higher. When we read an announcement, such as "Earthquake kills 10,000," we know that that means 10,000 people were killed instantly. An announcement, such as "Cigarette smoking killed 50,000 in 1981," would mean that the deaths occurred gradually over the year. However, if we read about a reactor accident killing 104,000, as referred to in a German report on risk, we must bear in mind that the majority of these people will suffer from leukaemia or cancer in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years' time and there will be a diminution in their lifespan. There has been experience of that in other fearful accidents.
Risks and the cost of safety are important and have to be balanced. The Soviet Union is a closed society, and it has been all the greater during this incident. I welcome the fact that nuclear scientists, especially from the International Atomic Energy Agency, have seen the disaster. Towards the end of this month the British branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be going to Moscow, led by Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). It will include two hon. Members who have knowledge of the subject, my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr Warren). I hope that they will go with sympathy and understanding to a nation which has had to face an accident of such immensity.
The Economic Community may not have reached an agreement on the banning of food and vegetables from eastern European countries, but what will the people of the Ukraine eat now? Do they not have a need for fresh milk, fresh food and vegetables, and can they be obtained from the Soviet Union? Can the rest of the world help? I believe that the mission should go with a message of sympathy and understanding. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was recently invited to the Soviet Union. Surely he has been in touch with his opposite numbers in the last two weeks.
Because of time, I shall cut out my observations on the accident. That will have to be debated on another occasion. About 18 months ago I had drawn to my attention a book by Helen Caldicott called "Nuclear Madness". I read that book with interest because I would have found many of the statements hard to refute. Since then, I have read some of the literary criticisms of that book, making the point: how safe is safe enough?

603
It is interesting that costs, availability of competitive sources of energy—mainly cheap coal—and the complexity of financing the utilities means that no or few new nuclear power stations are likely to start construction in the United States until the turn of the century. Key decisions will have to be made in that country, as there will be a growing need for electrical energy.
Ten years ago, when I was a member of the European Parliament, I went to Ispra. We were all concerned with emergency core cooling. About 30 years ago I was involved in the supply and design of boron steel reactor control rods. I think that I gave this story in the House, but I could not find my record of it. I visited one of the small prototype reactors in Harwell. I discussed with the operator of what, by today's standards, would be a simple control desk the circumstances in which the rods would be used. He told me that if the level of radiation and temperature went up, he moved a switch over and the temperature and radiation would go down. I was not allowed to pursue with the operator what he would do if the temperature and radiation did not drop. That was the problem at Three Mile Island to a certain extent, and it was certainly the problem at Chernobyl. Therefore, knowledge, education and training are all important aspects of nuclear safety.
I have concentrated on the weakness of an industry that I support. Some 35 years ago I was a supplier to de Havilland at the time of the first Comet disaster. I had no doubt that the jet airliner, as has been the case, would replace the prop and turboprop in time. I have no doubt that there is a role for nuclear energy in the generation of electricity in the years to come. Nuclear energy is a feature of modern society now. France has 43 commercial reactors producing 65 per cent. of its electricity supply. Belgium's reactors produce 60 per cent., Sweden's produce 43 per cent., and Switzerland's produce 40 per cent. In Britain, we are approaching 20 per cent., with 38 commercial reactors.
I said that I was concerned about the high cost of electricity in Sheffield. If Britain's competitors using nuclear and hydro power have advantages, that is of concern to industry. The point has been raised by the chemical industry and put to the National Economic Development Office, that the high cost of electricity has made the industry and smelting uncompetitive and has decimated hopes for competitive electric steel melting in a city such as Sheffield.
There are risks in other areas. No one has talked about acid rain and sulphur dioxide. The cost of a retro refit in the British coal-fired power station programme could be high. This morning, at the Natural Environmental Research Council, I discussed the CO2 content of the atmosphere, which has gone up by 40 per cent. since the start of the industrial revolution. It could double by the middle of the next century. I have discussed with the council the effect that it could have on our climate, changing the world's meteorological patterns and, above all, melting the ice caps, which could raise the sea level by 30 m, as reported in the council's annual report. Therefore, other solutions present problems, too. Risk in all those areas must be reviewed.
The debate is about nuclear waste disposal, too. About 18 months ago the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) took part with me in a public hearing in Sweden, organised by the Council of Europe, on nuclear waste
604
disposal. The hon. Gentleman produced an excellent report—as rapporteur—which illustrated that every Council of Europe country has similar problems. too.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
6.52 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that he would not under any circumstances accept nuclear waste in his constituency. He also faced up to the fact that it was unlikely that any other hon. Member would. Unfortunately, he did not go to the length of saying, as he took that attitude, that he would be opposed to any further extension of nuclear power. I would not accept nuclear waste in my constituency, but I am opposed to the use of nuclear power.
I agree that the action of the Russians in hiding the scope of the Chernobyl disaster in the early days was reprehensible. There was a good deal of Russian-bashing for the sake of it, although it is interesting that, after a couple of days, even from America there was an attempt to play it all down because the Americans had cottoned on to the fact that if they went too far in thumping the accident and the dangerous results that could follow, it would rebound on the nuclear industry all round the world.
Comfortable and self-satisfied statements were rnade in the House that the standards in the Russian nuclear power station would not be acceptable in the United Kingdom. That may be so. I was surprised at what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said. He terrified me more than ever by his description of present nuclear power stations in this country. I had accepted in good faith that, although they could not be 100 per cent. proof against an accident, they had not been designed by Heath Robinson. However, it appeared from the hon. Gentleman's comments that they had been slapped together by somebody who did not know much about it.
The point is that those power stations are human artefacts. No matter how good the material and careful the design, one cannot guard against human error and metal fatigue. There is a story that, although the gauges at the Russian power station at Chernobyl had been showing that there was a malfunction, the man on duty was asleep. That story has not been confirmed, but it shows what can happen. All the warnings could be activated, yet the human being concerned might be otherwise occupied or fail to take account of them.
People have said, or implied, that such an accident cannot happen here. When they say that, there are echoes from 1912, when people were assured that the Titanic was unsinkable. It could happen here, wherever there is such an atomic plant.
It is not true that British standards are the highest in the world. I am used to hon. Members saying that our police force is the finest in the world, our Civil Service is the finest in the world, and our system of justice is the finest in the world. Those claims may be true, but those who say that do not know it any more than I do, because they have never made a comparative study of all the other systems. Such people fall into line and say that the British have safety standards that the Russians would never dream of, but it now turns out that the West Germans and the USA have more stringent safeguards than we have.
One of the standard defences of the nuclear power industry and its apologists is that more deaths have

605
occurred in the mining industry. That is both factually correct and totally misleading. If men are killed in a mining accident, it is a tragedy for the individuals and their families. People are sympathetic and sorry that such accidents occur, but they do not affect anyone else. It is different when there is an accident in a nuclear power plant. Would anyone equate the six deaths at Chernobyl with six deaths in a mining accident? Of course not.
The number of power plants in France was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn). It is right that there is nothing much we can do about that. France may have no alternative, but that is not so in the United Kingdom, certainly not in Scotland. We still have plenty of fossil fuels. The amounts spent by the Government on alternative sources of energy has been derisory.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
People say: what about all the jobs in the nuclear power industry? I can tell them that 2,000 jobs have been created in Denmark in research and development on, and the manufacture of, wind power systems. Therefore, one cannot say that if the nuclear industry goes, all those jobs are lost.
In Scotland, there is now an inquiry at Dounreay. As that hearing is under way, I shall not say anything about it, although a sub judice rule does not operate. I say only this. If a country that calls itself "Great" Britain is going to look for an income from laundering dirty radioactive waste from Japan and other countries, what a prospect that is for the future.
Torness is due to go ahead, with indecent haste. The Government say that we need the power for industry. The Government, who have removed industry, are saying that. If we do not need power for industry in Scotland, it is as a result of their actions. There is less need than ever. If Torness comes on stream, we shall be 100 per cent. in excess of our needs. Why must it continue?
I should like to conclude by quoting The Times in 1980. Sir Kelvin Spencer, who was chief scientist at the Ministry of Power in the 1950s and who helped to launch Britain's nuclear power programme, was reported as saying that
"increased knowledge of the dangers had forced him to change his mind over the issue. The hazards were too terrifying".
Sir Kelvin's message, which I repeat, was:
"Drop it. Mankind cannot handle it".
6.59 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: In the 10 minutes that are permitted to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me if I confine myself to one aspect of the debate. I wish to consider what we can do with the byproducts of the nuclear age.
In late February this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that Fulbeck in my constituency was to be one of the four designated sites where explorations were to be carried out for nuclear waste disposal. Since that time, opposition to the proposals by NIREX has been total and absolute. I want to make it utterly clear that my constituents and I are, remain and will be wholly opposed to any suggestion that nuclear waste of any kind or quality should be brought into
606
my constituency. My main, prime, overriding and paramount objective is to persuade the Government to change their policy.
I urge the Government to make it a matter of policy that all nuclear waste should be put into some deep facility. Everything that I have to say now, that I have said in the past and that I will say in future, must be set against that main policy objective. We do not want any quality of nuclear waste in Fulbeck. We do not believe that shallow repositories should be used for the disposal of nuclear waste.
Before I expand on my general theme, I should like to consider the Government's response. In addition to our general opposition to the NIREX proposals, we have been seeking specific changes. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have moved their policy in some part. The most important concession that the Government have made is that the only nuclear waste for disposal in near-surface facilities will be of a low-level quality. That is an important concession. However, I want to make it plain that that concession is not sufficient. It will not defuse local opposition. We will build on the concessions that we have obtained: we will not rest on those concessions.
I should like to note three points about concessions. First, NIREX has introduced a limited compensation scheme for compensating property owners. That is not enough. We want more and we do not regard what NIREX has done as anything like sufficient.
Secondly, if there should be a public inquiry, we believe that public authorities, the Government or NIREX should fund the objectors who are obliged to state their arguments at the public inquiry.
Finally, and perhaps most important, we believe that very stringent conditions must be imposed, not merely on the classification of nuclear waste, but on its packaging, identification and monitoring. I trust that the Government response to those points will not be silence. I should very much regret such a response.
In a sense, these are secondary issues. I should like to return to my main objective. I want to persuade the House and the Government to change their policy on these matters. I recognise that that will be difficult. In a clear and unequivocal statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Labour party has revealed that it is committed to supporting the disposal of nuclear waste in near-surface facilities. I intervened in the speech made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal party spokesman on energy. There would appear to be some discord on these matters between the Liberal party Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and his hon. Friend the Liberal party energy spokesman.
I should now like to consider persuasion. We must recognise that there are other methods of disposing of nuclear waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) listed these in detail. Dr. Wheeler and ENSEC have described the oil-related technologies. The Germans advocate the deep-mined approach and the Swedish Government are following the "tunnel under the sea" policy. These technologies exist for all classes of nuclear waste, both intermediate and low-level.
These methods are not simply theoretical. A common theme applies to all methods of disposal—one method must be adopted for the disposal of intermediate-level

607
waste. It is absolutely clear that intermediate-level nuclear waste must be put into a deep facility. We are pressing for an enlargement of that concept and a recognition that all qualities of nuclear waste should go into one facility and not into two.
Arguments of cost, volume and urgency are made against that proposal. On analysis, these arguments do not stand up. Where does the urgency exist? The Select Committee report made it clear that, by pursuing policies of incineration, compaction and proper discretion, the site at Drigg could be extended for some time. The same argument applies to volume. The argument for cost does not stand up, because we are considering marginal cost. The Government are committed to two sites. I believe that there should be one site. The marginal costs are small and, in any event. is that cost not a price that we will have to pay?
I would ask the House to consider two matters. Can any hon. Member guarantee that the disposal site will be safe? Of course, it will probably be safe. The solid material will be inside steel drums and placed in engineered containers surrounded by clay. Yes, it will probably be safe, but who will guarantee that it will be safe? What would happen if the steel failed or if there were problems with the clay? What if there were some mishap in the handling or transport of the waste? What if there were a combination of all these things? If these things happened, who would dare say that additional expenditure was not necessary?
Never before has the nuclear industry been as vulnerable as it is today. It would take very little to turn the public wholly against the nuclear industry. It is against that background that I ask for a change of policy. I want all quality of nuclear waste to be put into a deep facility.
Perhaps hon. Members would care to bear in mind this final point. I am not asking of hon. Members anything that they would not ask of me if our positions were reversed.
7.8 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: We have heard several expressions of sympathy for the Soviet peoples tonight, and I associate myself with such comments. However, I remind the House that when we make reference to Chernobyl, we do not make reference to a Russian problem. In fact, we make reference to a global problem. We cannot afford to be parochial about these matters.
As we discuss these matters, the House should bear in mind that, when the Secretary of State for the Environment talks about trivial accidents within the British industry, he seems to be implying that, because these accidents are minor, they carry low risk. Nothing could be further from the truth. One is not synonymous with the other.
I could discuss many aspects of these issues, but in the short time available I must confine myself to information and regulation.
We have been told that the information given as a result of Chernobyl was full, frank, open and free. In fact, the full information that it is claimed was given came in a report based on a scant sampling in minuscule, almost illegible handwriting.
I would dispute that the information was frank. We were told that a similar design to the Chernobyl reactor was rejected in Britain on safety grounds. That, quite honestly, is less than honest. The design that was rejected in Britain was rejected on the grounds of lack of efficiency and economy. To suggest anything else would be untrue.
608
The comparison with jumbo jet accidents and the incidence of hazards from smoking is, once again, misleading. Those accidents and smoking hazards strike only at the existing generation. When we discuss radioactive elements we discuss issues that strike at subsequent generations. They strike at creation itself. They have the propensity to turn back the very clock of creation and evolution.
Let me give two quotations to show how open has been the information that we have been given. First:
"It would have been a precaution to have kept children inside on Saturday when it rained … But that is in retrospect. Try not to put that statement out because people could he frightened by it."
That was a statement by the National Radiological Protection Board to a member of the media and can be substantiated.
Secondly:
"We don't have the policy of divulging area breakdowns of the radiation figures for milk … The tendency would be for members of the public to buy their milk from areas with a less radioactive level and that would be no good for the milk suppliers."
That is a quote from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the same member of the media. In other words, what it is really saying is that profits matter, people do not.
At the time that the Government were criticising the Soviet Government for their inability to release information relating to the possible exposure of British subjects to radiation, they were refusing information about the possibility of British subjects consuming the same damned stuff in irradiated food.
When we talked about the kind of things that govern regulations, let us remember that it is already acknowledged that those regulations are based upon data which are already flawed, so much so that we have had to return to the database supplied by Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to examine it with the more sophisticated and recent developments in data analysis.
We are told that our standards equate to international standards. That is another misleading piece of information. The legally enforceable limit in Britain for the ordinary member of the public is 5 mSv per year. The international standards of acceptability—not safety, note—is 1 mSv per year. In Western Germany it is 0·3 mSv per year. In the United States it is 0·25 mSv per year.
If one concentrates on those figures and develops them, they mean that the Americans are 20 times safer than we are, the West Germans are 17 times safer and anywhere else in the world which accepts international standards is five times safer.
Mr. Peter Walker indicated dissent.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman may take issue with me—please do. I suggest that all the information has been, to some degree, deceiving. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to dispel the deception, he should answer my questions.
Derived emergency reference levels, as published by the NRPB, are based on a dose limit to the public of 5 mSv a year, as I have said. Is there not now a case for limiting supplies of food on the basis of the new limit of 1 mSv per year, even though this is only an average dose limit?

609
Could the Government explain definitively why derived emergency reference levels differ, for example, for iodine-131 in milk, by as much as a factor of four in the countries of western Europe?
What are the levels of actinides and strontium-90 in the environment and food at the present time as a result of the Russian reactor incident?
When will the Government make available to the public in a simple form the implications for holidaymakers, and indeed delegations of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of the levels of radioactivity in other countries that they may visit?
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that one organisation—I hope that he is listening—similar to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, should both collate and disseminate monitoring data to the British public, this one organisation to have both governmental and independent representation and to provide information in a simple, understandable manner on risk to the public from all sources, not just from radiation?
Will the Secretary of State try to answer those questions as a means of, to some extent, dispelling my suspicions of previous deception?
7.15 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): I think the House knows that Elstow in my constituency has had hanging over it for two and a half years longer than anybody else the worry of a repository for short and intermediate-level nuclear waste. I welcome the Government's decision to remove the intermediate-level waste from that threat. Nevertheless, I make no apology for saying that I do not believe that any inland site in a crowded county is the right place to put any sort of nuclear waste of this nature.
It is worth remembering that no country in Europe is proposing to solve the problems, which we all recognise must be tackled and solved, in that way. Centre de la Manche in northern France is the only broadly similar example, but that does not rely on the concept of total containment alone. It has fail-safe drainage to the sea. The concept of total containment is really not credible to anybody who believes in Murphy's law. There must be a risk that sooner or later on a 300-acre site, which, by definition, will become waterlogged, drums may rupture, concrete may fail and water-bearing radionuclides may leach away into the aquifers and thereby find a pathway to man. We and the industry hope that that will not happen, but it is hard to persuade the public. I sympathise with and support what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said in that respect.
In Bedfordshire we oppose the NIREX proposals constructively. I think that the vast majority of us support the nuclear industry and realise that there must be a solution. I have had the problem for two and a half years, and I have studied it closely. I believe that there are solutions. My request to the Government in this debate is to look again closely at three things.
I ask them to look at the quantities of low-level waste that have to be dealt with, to look at the methods which are available for its disposal, and to look with a jaundiced eye at the comparative cost. Remember that we have to solve the problem of intermediate-level nuclear waste
610
which the Government and the Select Committee have made clear is bound to be dealt with by some sort of deep-mine facility.
The quantities of low-level waste are, to my astonishment, much lower than any of us had realised. If one looks carefully at the best practical environmental options that have been produced for the Government, and at the Government response to the Select Committee's report, one finds that they are proposing to put into Drigg between 350,000 and 1·2 million cu m of waste, depending on how much it is compacted. All the low-level waste that they are proposing to put in elsewhere amounts to 191,000 cu m, which will cut down at least to a third—about 63,000 cu m—and may well be cut down much more. At the moment that low-level waste is not properly monitored because it was not considered worth while when compared with the cheap cost of putting it into Drigg.
When one considers the higher costs, and monitors the waste carefully, vast quantities can be excluded which could perfectly well go on a council tip. One would be able to burn or compact the gloves and coats, and one would be able to treat a great deal of the remainder. Even if one was left with 63,000 cu m of low-level waste, which is the maximum, that is a third of the 200,000 cu m of intermediate low-level waste which the best practical environmental options study said would have to be put into a deep-mined site.
The costs which the Government put forward for Drigg were a mere £25 per cu m. The waste was merely dumped, as in any other council tip. A similar site was proposed for Bedfordshire. NIREX has now said that a site at Bedfordshire, Fulbeck or anywhere else, would be a fully engineered site. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee, said that there must be a fully engineered Rolls-Royce solution. The cost of such a site, according to the BPEO document, was £615 per cu m. I do not know whether that is broadly accepted by the Government. The mininum costs for a mere concrete shell would be £125 per cu m.
We must consider the alternative of the deep disposal solution and consider the proven technologies of the oil and gas industries in the North sea. Dr. Wheeler has referred us to such technology. Westinghouse has been doing similar work and the suggested costing is £400 per cu m. That is less than the cost of the Rolls-Royce solution for a near-surface, or shallow, land burial site. That cost is likely to come down as a result of the economies of scale that would follow. The residual 60,000 cu m of low-level waste would be added to the 200,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste.
I recognise that my figures ignore, as indeed the answer to my parliamentary questions ignored, the extra low-level waste that could come from the decommissioned Magnox reactors. The timing of such decommissioning is doubtful. It is doubtful whether we should shift the low-level radioactive material when the high-level radioactive cores are left on the site.
I ask my right hon. Friends to invite NIREX and their Departments to study the matter again and to consider the quantities that will be dealt with. My right hon. Friends should insist, as the public rightly insists, that everything that is to go either into a repository or into a council tip—much of the waste could go to a tip, as it is perfectly harmless—is properly monitored before being moved anywhere. That would greatly enhance public confidence.

611
When one discovers that the quantities involved are low, on may find a deep-mined or sub-sea manifold solution looks much more attractive.
There are powerful reasons why an inland site at Elstow is wholly unsuitable. I could mention that the depth of the clay is probably insufficient, or that the clay is an important mineral reserve for the brick-making industry, which is one of the principal local employers. I have put forward carefully thought out reasons why there is a much more acceptable solution to these problems. I hope that my right hon. Friends will say that they will go away and consider them carefully.
7.23 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I should like to express sympathy for the terrible tragedy that the Soviet people have suffered, in terms not only of the immediate loss of life but of the loss of life that may come later and of the contamination of their crops. I am aware that it is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Energy, but if it were possible to make a gift of food, which is at present held by the Common Market, that would assist the Soviet Union at this time. I believe that would be much appreciated and would contribute to better relations between East and West, which may result in lessening the risks of nuclear war.
I have risen to put on record the reasons why I take the view, to which I have come slowly over the years, that we should have an energy policy that does not incorporate a nuclear component. I say that, having been responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority as Minister of Technology, from 1966 to 1970 and again as Secretary of State for Energy from 1975 to 1979.
I express my respect for the scientists and people who work in the industry. Many of them were motivated to work for civil nuclear power because they believed it was an alternative to the military uses of nuclear energy. The Atoms for Peace campaign, which was launched by President Eisenhower, was seen as a major development of technology in the interests of mankind. It was certainly considered as such by my generation who remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a classic case of swords into ploughshares, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed powerfully in his speech.
Nuclear energy was to be a peaceful development; it was to be cheaper and safe; and we were to be open about it. I regret to tell the House that my experience, over many years from that Dispatch Box, taught me that none of those arguments was true. I wish to point out one or two of the facts that the House should take into account.
Nuclear power began as a military operation. In the countries which have adopted it, it remains primarily necessary for military purposes. In India, Pakistan and Iran, and in Britain, it was wanted for military purposes. The first British reactor was built when Mr. Attlee decided that Britain needed the bomb. That desire was not confided to his Cabinet or to Parliament. That was the origin of the development of British nuclear power.
The proliferation which has followed has been a proliferation with military consequences. The House may be aware that within Euratom, of which we are members, there is no safeguard to prevent the French, who have not signed the non-proliferation treaty, from obtaining
612
uranium for its bomb programme, even though that means that it is no longer possible for Canadian uranium to come to Britain because it would go outside its safeguards.
It is an expensive technology, concealed by the fact that the research and development has been paid for by the Ministry of Defence. Recently the French stated that it would cost 40 per cent. of the cost of construction of a new power station to decommission a nuclear power station. It would cost about £600 million to decommission each nuclear power station.
We have no answer to the waste problem. I accept that whether we proceed or—as I believe we should—stop and phase out nuclear energy, there will a residual waste problem. Is nuclear energy safe? It was only by an act of God or of chance that the accident occurred in Chernobyl, not here.
In 1969, I was Minister of Technology when the corrosion occurred at the Magnox stations. I was told in great detail how a meltdown might occur if it was impossible to close the reactor down and if the heat exchanger ruptured. At Windscale there was a serious fire, and serious leaks also occurred. Another leak occurred at the end of my period as Secretary of State for Energy. A soil sample was taken in December 1978, but it was not analysed until March 1979. I was informed of the analysis a few days later, and 2,200 gallons of highly toxic waste had seeped into the earth. It lies there today under the clay, just above the water table. When I asked about cleaning it, I was told that a new plant would be required for the clean-up operation. For that reason, one of my last acts as a Minister was to state that there should be an inquiry into Windscale.
There was a near-disaster at Three Mile Island. But people may not be aware of what happened at Brown's Ferry in America. A fuse blew at that site. A scientist was sent to look for the fuse box with a candle, and he set fire to the safety circuit.
There was serious corrosion at Winfrith. It was discovered that a dissatisfied employee had urinated into the equipment, and Scotland Yard had to be called in to discover how the corrosion had occurred.
At Hunterston a valve was turned the wrong way and sea water was brought into the station. As a result, the power station was out of action for a year.
One cannot exclude human error. There have been many cover-ups. When there was a big explosion in Kyshtym American intelligence picked it up and told the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1958, but American intelligence also told it not to tell British Ministers. When 200 tonnes of uranium was stolen from Euratom in 1968 I was Minister, but I was not told, on the ground that Britain was not a member of the Common Market.
The biggest cover-up of all, for which I shall never forgive those responsible, was that throughout the period when I was Minister plutonium from our atoms-for-peace reactors was going to America to make bombs and warheads that would return to American bases here. That view has been confirmed by Ministers in this Government. I was cross-examined about it at the Sizewell inquiry, and only recently has it been admitted that the atoms-for-peace power stations are in reality bomb factories for the United States.
The environmental hazards of nuclear power both now and later are too great for us to take. The cumulative effect of radioactivity is very different from the reassuring

613
statements that we receive about little doses that may come from time to time. The military implications of what happened at Chernobyl are phenomenal. People must now know that if we bomb Russia, the bombs that we drop will release radioactivity that will ultimately destroy us, and if conventional weapons are dropped on our nuclear power stations radioactivity comparable to that from a nuclear attack will be released.
The civil liberties of which we are so proud are bound to go by the board when dealing with such a dangerous technology that has military implications. I have been to the plutonium store in Dounreay. It is like a bank vault. One can understand why the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is armed with orders to shoot to kill in the event of an attempt to steal plutonium. We must phase out nuclear power. We must cancel the PWR, abandon the Dounreay project, close Sellafield and decommission nuclear stations, beginning with the older stations. Anyone who thinks that the industry's skills will not be required should bear in mind that it will take the skill of every nuclear engineer for 10 years to clean up what has, alas, been created.
The miners were right to say that coal should be the basis of our future energy needs. In the 1960s the pits were closed on the ground that oil would always be cheaper. In the 1980s they were closed on the ground that nuclear energy was better. We should go for a coal programme. Even my Department admitted that, even with the fiddled figures for nuclear energy, coal was as cheap as nuclear power. We should also go for conservation and for alternative sources of energy.
I fear that Chernobyl will not be the last accident. I listened to the debate and wondered how different it would have been if that accident had occurred at Bradwell, Hunterston, Oldbury or Torness. I share the view expressed today. This is a technology that humanity cannot handle, and, not for the first time, the public are ahead of Parliament in perceiving that.
7.33 pm
Mr. John Hannam: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke from his experience in government. I speak as someone who has been involved in the sphere of energy in Parliament for about 12 years. During that time we have seen major changes in different parts of the energy equation. We saw oil prices rocket, causing alternatives to come into play. We then, of course, saw prices fall. Coal went out of favour through needless political militancy, and natural gas developed as a major source of both domestic and commercial fuel.
During all that time, the concept of nuclear power as a one-fifth component in our electricity generation has remained constant, although various systems for its generation have gone in and out of scientific and political favour. But in this country the underlying factor in our debates and discussions has always been that of safety, even if the cost in design and construction terms has meant that we have been slower and less economic in our nuclear development.
With a massive over-capacity of generating power throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, and with the seven AGRs coming into commission between 1976 and the late 1980s, there has been no urgency for new nuclear capacity except now on the grounds of maintaining a low-cost
614
baseload generation of electricity, of needing to keep the nuclear construction industry in existence and of requiring replacements for the Magnox stations which began their careers in 1956, 30 years ago. The debate in recent years has essentially become one of choice of design of thermal reactor. It has been a debate about the thermal reactor that we will need for the next half century and about whether it should be the AGR or the PWR, gas-cooled reactors or water-cooled reactors. There has also been the parallel debate, which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield recreated, of nuclear energy versus coal.
I have never believed in a picture of the next century of power generation comprising anything other than mainly nuclear reactors, with oil fading off the scene and coal replacing oil as the main industrial feedstock, and not being used for electricity generation. In any case, coal is a heavy polluter of the earth's atmosphere and produces a death toll many times greater than that of nuclear power. In the United States, it is estimated that some 25,000 people die each year as a result of coal burning. Nevertheless, in the short term, coal is available, albeit at a high cost to the consumer and at a high cost in terms of security of supply.
Alternatives such as wave or wind power, or even solar power, could assist a little in the overall electricity equation, but we should still be left with the need for that crucial 20 to 25 per cent. baseload supply of low-cost nuclear power. Even on that basis, we should be far behind other European countries, such as France with 60 to 75 per cent., Belgium with 60 per cent., or Germany with 45 per cent. or more, which all supply electricity 20 per cent. more cheaply to our competitors in industry.
The recent Tokyo summit declaration stated:
"Nuclear power is, and properly managed will continue to be an increasingly widely used source of energy".
I support that international view, and I hope that the House and the country will also support it. But the declaration went on to say:
"For each country the maintenance of safety and security is an international responsibility and each country engaged in nuclear power generation bears full responsibility for the safety of the design, manufacture, operation and maintenance of its installations".
The Russian nuclear disaster, like other high-tech disasters that they have experienced, was due to their failure to maintain the high standards required. It is essential now that the Soviet Government should join fully in the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency to achieve safe international guidelines. But we would be wrong, and would fail in our duty as legislators, if we allowed ourselves to panic over this issue. The consequences would rebound on future generations just as surely as would our failure to effect proper safeguards over the use of atomic power for peaceful purposes.
That also means the processes of dealing with nuclear waste, with which the Select Committee concerned itself. A few weeks ago, I visited Sellafield and was reassured to find a new realisation among the management that the ways of the past were no longer acceptable and that much more effective safety controls must be introduced.
The Select Committee report was wide-ranging, hard-hitting and constructive. I am pleased that the nuclear industry's response was not to rubbish the report but to agree to look at each recommendation very carefully. The public, quite naturally, are deeply concerned about the dangers of radiation, and until they receive proper explanations and reassurances from the experts—I do

615
not mean just those working within the reprocessing industry—it is understandable that they should give the thumbs down to nuclear power developments.
At the moment, any release of radioactivity causes alarm, even if the level is well below that received from other normal processes in life. The nuclear industry must find a language that is clearly understood by everyone, so that very low-level activity such as that from discarded clothing or gloves is understood to be less than that from a television set. When we talk of safe nuclear reactor systems, we must be able to explain to the layman exactly why they are safe.
The Chernobyl reactor was by all accounts a reactor waiting for a disaster. The complacency of the Russians in allowing poor manufacturing standards and compromise technology led to the world's worst nuclear disaster. Yet warnings had been given by our own nuclear experts back in 1978 when they pinpointed the Russian RBMK reactors as having crucial flaws in design, with the absence of secondary containment vessels. reactor shutdown devices and emergency cooling systems. The use of graphite as a moderator and the extremely high operating temperature of 750 deg. C meant that, if steam came into contact with the graphite, a violent reaction would set in and the subsequent generation of hot hydrogen gas would lead to ignition and explosion.
Therefore, pending the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry, we should redouble our efforts to secure every piece of information we can get through the international agency, not only about every type of nuclear reactor being used in the world, but about all the small incidents which have occurred and which will help us in ensuring the integral safety of the system that we eventually decide to develop.
For example, not far from here is the French nuclear system. Some of their older gas reactors also use graphite as a moderator. Electricit é de France has announced that its technology is completely different. So there is no intention to close down those reactors; it says that they have concrete screening anyway. The French have more than 50 nuclear reactors in operation or under construction. Apart from the four older gas graphite reactors and the two fast breeder reactors, all the others are PWRs and are judged to be considerably safer than the older plants.
The Sizewell PWR design is also considered to be far safer than the older PWRs like the Three Mile Island reactor, which is 20 years old. The French are massively engaged in nuclear generation. I hope that our scientitst and safety experts are co-operating closely with the French, so that all the information about their nuclear experiences can be made known.
There must be no secrecy. If nuclear power is to play the part that I believe it should in our future energy scene, it must be on the basis of total understanding of the technology and the safety system that is built into the reactors. The public perception that by opting out of nuclear power and declaring Britain a nuclear-free zone we will in one bound be free from any possible radiation danger, is obviously false. The use of this immense source of cheap energy is an international concern and the Chernobyl disaster has brought home that fact, even to the Russians. Such a disaster should not, and must not, be allowed to happen again. The extra costs inherent in a safe
616
system of nuclear generation are a burden that mankind is prepared to pay, just as we must pay the extra costs for safety in chemicals manufacture and in coal burning.
If the Chernobyl accident had happened in the United States, the political anger and furore would have been immense. The other side would have been deafening in its accusations of cutting corners, of placing profit before safety and of lack of concern either for employees or for the neighbouring community. But the accident did not happen in the free West and we can justifiably argue that, under our system of public inquiry, licensing regulations and safety requirements, the Chernobyl form of reactor would never have been built here.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was right to state that there would have been no disaster at Chernobyl had the Soviet Union followed the procedures of the democracies. But what has happened has happened, and many people and families, while acccepting the points that I have just made, are still extremely worried about the possibility that, given all the safety we can build into our systems, we could still have the risk of a nuclear accident, however remote.
So a major task faces the international agencies of government and industry. I am confident that we can resolve the problem and continue to have the low-cost energy for the future which only nuclear power can provide.
7.43 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: It is such a rare occurrence for the Government, in the face of the evidence, to take a sensible decision to change their mind that we must begin by welcoming the Government's decision, in their response to the Select Committee, that they no longer intend to place intermediate-level waste, however short-lived, in shallow disposal facilities. That is a small step in the right direction and is much to be welcomed.
However, the Government's initial response to the Select Committee is, I fear, severely inadequate in other respects. In dealing with the shallow disposal facilities, the Government have not taken on board the Select Committee's recommendations about the definition of low level waste, about the alpha emissions of such waste or about the radionuclides that are contained in much of the waste that goes into Drigg, for example. There should be a much tighter definition of low-level waste which may well go into one of the four sites for which NIREX is currently prospecting.
In addition, the Government have said nothing about what they intend to do with the intermediate-level waste. The long-term answer is to stop the reprocessing operation, because it is only through reprocessing that intermediate-level waste is produced. None the less, we have such waste and something has to be done with it. As the Government have said nothing about how they propose to deal with that waste, there are severe inadequacies even around the one concession which they made on receipt of the evidence produced by the Select Committee.
The Government have also failed to deal with some of the major proposals of the Select Committee about the operation of Drigg and the need to have a much more carefully engineered and monitored facility for the disposal of low-level waste. We must recall that the Select Committee said unequivocally that Drigg is an unacceptable model for the disposal of any waste, however

617
low-level. I have been to Drigg and have found that it is operated like a municipal rubbish tip, with none of the safeguards which any reasonable member of the public would expect on a disposal site for low-level waste. If we are to continue with the shallow disposal of even the lowest level of radioactive waste, there must be much more careful monitoring of the waste when it arrives at the disposal facility. It must be packaged properly and its disposal must be carefully engineered; it should not just be tipped in, as happens at present.
The Government have not dealt properly with any of those recommendations in their response to the Select Committee. They say that improvements can be and are being made in line with current practice, but that is not good enough. That will not satisfy the enormous public concern which justifiably exists about the way in which the by-products of the nuclear production process are handled and disposed of.
Much to my disappointment, the Government have not yet replied to the Select Committee's comments on the transport of nuclear waste. Nearly every night, trains carrying nuclear waste pass through my constituency. The Select Committee had graphic evidence about what might happen, admittedly in remotely conceivable occurrences, if an accident took place to one of those trains. The evidence was that, if a train carrying nuclear waste were to catch fire, radiation could spread over a wide area. The Select Committee made specific recommendations about the timetabling of the movement of such trains. The Government have not yet responded to those recommendations. The matter is urgent. The Government should carefully consider those recommendations and should produce early answers about the future transportation of nuclear waste around the country and particularly through my constituency.
Having said that the Government's initial response is inadequate in those respects, I must also say that the root cause of the nuclear waste problem and of the Government's reluctance to deal with nuclear waste properly lies in their long-standing love affair with the nuclear industry. The Government are moving firmly in the wrong direction. About 17 per cent. of our electricity production comes from nuclear generation. The Government intend—they revealed this to me in a parliamentary answer some months ago—to increase that percentage to 25 per cent. by 1990. That is a move in the wrong direction. We shold move down from 17 per cent. instead of up.
Britain's future energy production should be based on the principal production of coal-fired power stations using cleanburn technology. Much rubbish has been talked about acid rain being produced by coal-fired power stations. Of course acid rain is produced by the gases that come from coal-fired power stations, but the technology exists to remove the gases and to burn coal cleanly. That is the way forward for our electricity production, coupled with major programmes of alternative energy, research in conservation measures that are badly needed in much of the rotten housing in which many of people must live and combined heat and power schemes in power stations, which could provide good, cheap energy resources. That is the way forward for a sensible energy policy.
I have heard nothing from the Government or from their Back-Bench Members—who protest too much about
618
their worries—to convince me that the Government have a sensible energy policy. We need an energy policy that uses our indigenous resources and that commands widespread public support. The way forward is clear and the Labour Government who will come into office next year will follow that much more sensible policy.
7.51 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the nuclear industry meeting the needs of the people, but we also need politicians who will be a little more honest with the people about the risks. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) criticised the National Radiological Protection Board and regaled the House with a record of a conversation in which a board representative said that giving advice not to play in the rain could create public panic. That is right. On 3 May, in Glasgow, when the radiation in the rain was measured at 10,000 becquerels per litre—which I understand was one of the highest recorded levels in Britain—even if someone had gone out and drunk rainwater throughout the day, the effect on his health would be the equivalent of smoking one cigarette every 50 days. It was negligible.
From the accounts broadcast by BBC Scotland and the rest of the Scottish media, the public were left with the clear impression that there was a major cause for anxiety. Constituents telephoned my home and asked whether it was safe for children to touch the grass. That unjustified public hysteria was created and promoted by some politicians, notably the hon member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and some of his Liberal friends, who have now left the Chamber. They deliberately sought to wind up public concern to further their position, which is difficult to define but which is broadly hostile to nuclear power.
The facts are that in no part of Britain were the public health effects of the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster—all hon. Members have considerable sympathy for the people who were affected by it in the Soviet Union—any worse than they would be for someone taking a fortnight's holiday in Cornwall. I say that because in parts of Cornwall, as in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the background count was considerably higher because of the presence of radoactive granite. Indeed, 1 per cent. of the homes in Cornwall—that represents 4,000 people—are exposed to radiation from the rocks which make up their homes at a greater level than would be tolerated at Sellafield, which is 5 rems.
Liberal Members, especially the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who talk about emergency levels in milk would do well to read the report of the Kemeny commission, which was set up to investigate the effects of the Three Mile Island disaster. Its conclusion was that the worst effects on public health came from irresponsible politicians and irresponsible people in the media, who needlessly created great public anxiety and stress. More people's lives were shortened through that stress than were ever in danger from radioactivity. I recognise that there are worries, but in this debate people should examine the facts and try to communicate them instead of fanning the flames of hysteria.
The British nuclear industry has a remarkable record. Despite the scares and some of the speeches that we have

619
heard, it remains true that the average family watching television for four hours a day receives far more radiation than anyone living within five miles of a nuclear power station.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Rubbish.
Mr. Forsyth: It is not rubbish; it has been measured. Hon. Members who have done any science will be aware that X-rays are emitted by the cathode ray tubes in colour televison sets.
Mr. Bruce: That is not what we are considering.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he is wrong. We are talking about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on people's health.
Apart from background radiation, the largest doses of radiation received by most people come in the form of medical applications, including X-rays. Workers in nuclear power receive larger doses than most of us. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that we should concentrate on coal and that six deaths at Chernobyl are not the same as six deaths in the mines. He would do well to remember that, since 1975, there have been nine deaths in the nuclear industry—none of them because of radiation, and all of them conventional accidents—compared with 399 deaths in coal mining. If our worry is for workers' health, nuclear power wins hands down. If hon. Members are worried about exposure to radiation, they should turn their attention to British Airways, because aircraft crew are exposed to twice as much radiation as the rest of us on the ground.
If we consider the facts and statistics about the risk of premature death from accidents and cancer, we discover that, in deep-sea fishing, the figure is one in 400; in coal mining, it is one in 4,000; in construction, it is one in 5,000; the average for all employment is one in 20,000; and for radiation workers, the figure is one in 20,000. Nuclear workers are at less risk than workers in those other industries.
The Liberals wish to have it all ways. They tell us that they wish to decommission nuclear power stations. They should address their minds to the costs of doing that, because there are risks from other means of generation. We shall lose tremendous advantages if we give up nuclear power. Whatever the hon. Member for Gordon says, the French enjoy a 1 billion cost advantage over British industry because of their nuclear power, yet he continually tells the House that we should do more for our manufacturing base. We could hardly do more damage than by removing the opportunities to be competitive on energy.
Indeed, this Scottish Member had the cheek to come to the House and tell us that he wants to see the Magnox stations decommissioned, when in Scotland electricity is 25 per cent. less expensive that it would otherwise be, thanks to nuclear power. The Opposition made a great fuss about cold weather and heating allowances. The great benefit that Scotland enjoys is cheap electricity, and that is due to the investment that has been made in nuclear power. Pensioners in Scotland and the poor who are worried about their heating bills should know for certain that the Liberals and the Labour party will put up their fuel bills so that there would be more deaths from hypothermia and, indeed. in the coal mines and elsewhere.
If it is employment that hon. Members are worried about, they can explain to the people in the west of
620
Scotland working for Babcock Power and Wear Pumps, who have 1,200 man-years of work riding on the other of a nuclear power station after Sizewell, why their jobs were lost because of the ideological opposition of those Members.
Those who seem to think it is possible to duck the question of disposal simply by saying that we will not have a nuclear power industry can also explain to the people in hospital and elsewhere who benefit from radiation treatment that there will be no place to dispose of the radionuclides in use. There is a tremendous gap between the public understanding of radioactive waste and the reality of the danger that it presents.
I commend to the House the excellent paper presented to us by the nuclear industry. It shows that the average surburban garden contains 4 lb of uranium and 13 lb of thorium and that the natural radioactivity that exists all round us presents a far greater threat than the low-level waste that we are discussing. Indeed, the idea that garden fertiliser containing radioactive potassium should have half the level of waste of what is exercising my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in itself shows the extent to which the debate has got out of hand.
The Select Committee states that it believes that no alpha-emitting low-level waste should be disposed of. I conclude by pointing out that in Scotland the granite chips to be found on everybody's drive emit alpha radiation containing long-life nuclides in the form of uranium. Opposition Members are saying here that in no way can we allow this sort of material to be buried in the soil, when in Scotland it is placed in drives to prevent motor cars from sinking into the soil. I believe that we need a debate in the country, but it must be a responsible one, based on rational choices and real information.
8.2 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: We are discussing not only the Select Committee's report and the Government's partial response to that part of it which deals with the disposal of low-level and intermediate-level waste, but the accident that everybody—including the Secretary of State for Energy, who recently visited the Soviet Union and came back and reported that Soviet nuclear energy was safe—said could never happen. To blame the Soviet Union and suggest that its systems are so different from ours that it could never happen here is to insult the intelligence not only of the House but of the British public.
Other matters have not been dealt with adequately in the debate. After the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who eloquently produced the nuclear industry's brief, I want to deal with some of the points on which he touched and which affect the recommendations of the Select Committee, to which the Government have not yet responded.
I deal first with the consequences and risks in nuclear energy. The nuclear industry argues that new technologies, ideas and ventures have always been resisted. Nuclear energy, the industry argues, is like electricity. It is said that some people used to believe that, if one left the plug out, electricity would escape. That is not true, but it is certainly true of nuclear power and nuclear energy. To compare, as the nuclear industry always does, the background radiation of a television set or flying in a jet with what happened at Chernobyl and what could be released into the environment if a major accident happened

621
at a nuclear power station is again to insult the intelligence of the British people. To compare the kind of accidents in which people are killed in coal mines—ignoring those being killed in the uranium mines—with the possibility of a nuclear accident, which, as my hon. Friends have said, affects not only those working in the industry and, as happened in the Aberfan disaster, those living near the area, but future generations and the genetic structure of human beings and those yet unborn is to compare things that are very different in nature. Nuclear accidents are quite different in kind from any accidents in the coal mining industry or in factories.
We are talking about different levels of waste and radioactive discharges. First, there are discharges to the environment and radioactive water going into the Irish sea. Any single discharge has a background radiation level lower than that in bricks and on the television screen. It was thought that the sea would disperse it, but it has not done so. That statistic does not take account of the buildup of a continuing discharge of low-level radioactivity. The build-up is such that even worms go through it and become radioactive; fish eat the worms; and that is the chain reaction back to mankind. Nobody knows the consequences of a build-up of discharges to the environment, which must be stopped.
As to the low-level waste that will be put in shallow-burial engineered trenches, the Government have now accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Energy, pre-Chernobyl, was rubbishing the regulations and saying that these were merely the views of a few Back Benchers with advisers who were passionately antinuclear. The Secretary of State for Energy, pre-Chernobyl, praised the safety record of Sellafield and described the Select Committee's report as "lovely, emotive phrases" to which he said he would be responding formally after studying the report.
Now we have the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the aftermath of Chernobyl and public opinion, saying that the Select Committee on the Environment in its report on radioactive waste has helped to clarify the issues involved. Indeed, I believe that it has, because there is the acceptance that low-level waste should not be put in shallow-burial sites unless they are engineered and sealed off as the dangers are recognised.
It is also said that intermediate-level waste should not be put in the same sites. The hon. Member for Stirling compared that low-level waste with the high-level waste from the nuclear industry. No high-level waste comes from hospitals or any other industry. The high-level waste is the spent fuel waste that has to be stored disposed of or reprocessed. The reprocessing produces liquid high-level waste, which is now stored in huge tanks at Sellafield and stirred to stop it settling, and it has yet to be vitrified and disposed of.
The Select Committee toured nearly every nuclear advanced country in the world. Not one country, as yet, has conclusively proved that this high-level waste can be safely disposed of in deep geological disposal sites. If the Government want to put low-level and intermediate-level waste in deep geological disposal sites in hon. Members constituencies, they must prove that it is safe. Nobody has yet disposed of any high-level waste anywhere in the world. It is still stored in France, which is the most
622
advanced country, vitrified and ready for disposal. Research is going on in every country in the world, except this country, as to how, or whether, one can dispose of it.
If it is put in a mine, in granite, clay or salt, as the Germans are doing, one has to be certain that, not for 100 years, not for 1,000 years, but for 1 million years that radioactivity that has been sealed up will not get back into man's environment. It can return to man's environment if water passes over it and through it and it gets into the water course. No one has proved conclusively anywhere in the world—the onus is on the Government and the industry to engage in research and to produce proof, and if it cannot it must stop production—that it can be disposed of safely.
I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the next Labour Government would review THORP. The Government have not dealt with the issue raised by the Select Committee, which is whether reprocessing should continue and whether THORP should be completed. When the THORP contract arose and we were to start reprocessing, the world price of uranium was high and it was felt that it was necessary to recover uranium and to produce plutonium. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, plutonium is required for bombs, and it is needed also for the fast breeder reactor.
When I visited America with other members of the Select Committee, we found that President Carter had stopped all the reprocessing of civil spent fuel rods. He had separated the specific reprocessing plant that would reprocess what plutonium was needed for American bombs. At that time he was getting plutonium from us secretly. President Carter costed this and separated the reprocessing plant from the rest of the programme. At that time the Democrats were committed to non-proliferation and they did not want to produce more plutonium than they needed for themselves. President Reagan has said that production can increase if it is economically viable, but it has not increased because it would not be commercially viable to take that course. That is because the world price of uranium has dropped dramatically. In Canada, for example, it is coming out of their ears. There needs to be a reassessment.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland say that the next Labour Government would repeal the Official Secrets Act and end the military production of plutonium. How dare the Government attack the Russians for their secrecy? British Members of Parliament who were members of the Select Committee that went to the United States were shown the costings for the military and civil nuclear programmes. They were shown where the plutonium was produced for military purposes and they were given the facts and figures that were denied to them in Britain because of the Official Secrets Act. The Government would not tell us the truth about what was happening at Sellafield. Those who doubt me—[Interruption.] there is no need for hon. Members to shout at me—should speak to those Conservative Members who were part of the group that went to America whether what I have said is true.
I and other members of the Select Committee went to Drigg, and we saw things that would not have been allowed in any other country. We found that low-level and intermediate-level waste—at first it was denied that intermediate-level waste was being handled in this way—was dumped into shallow trenches and covered with

623
soil. Water leached through it, and the result was radioactivity in streams. None of the other nuclear countries that the Select Committee visited would have tolerated that. Not one of them would have allowed that activity to continue.
As members of a Select Committee, we were not able to compare the economics of the nuclear industry with those of coal-fired power stations. That was because we could not obtain the facts about the cross-subsidisation of the military and civil processes. We were not able to obtain any real costings of the necessary research to deal with the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. I am convinced to this day that the long-term consequences of controlling, monitoring and disposing of nuclear waste will be so costly that the economic case that has been argued so far, which is based on the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power, will be proved to be entirely wrong.
The nuclear industry and the Government must rethink their cavalier attitude in the light not only of public opinion but of an accident that many said would never happen. Chernobyl has demonstrated clearly to the British people the consequences of a major nuclear accident. The public feel that it could happen here, and they need more than reassurance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Senn) said, they realise that if such consequences can flow from an accident in a civil nuclear power station, the consequences would be immensely more severe from a nuclear weapon containing plutonium. At least the accident at Chernobyl did not put plutonium into the air, but that would happen if one small bomb exploded. No Government can offer any defence against nuclear weapons and their use. A nuclear power is in effect saying to its enemy, "If you attack us, we shall commit suicide." That has become more and more obvious during this debate.
8.15 pm
Mr. Richard Hickmet: I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks. I am not sure that I agree with all of his conclusions, but I listened to his speech with great interest, as did the rest of the House.
I shall confine my remarks to the NIREX proposal that the four sites which have been proposed should be surveyed for their suitability for the disposal of low-level waste in a near-surface disposal facility. I welcome the Government's decision to reject the proposal that the sites should be considered for the disposal of intermediate-level waste. It is a significant move and one which has been welcomed widely. I accept that the nature of the waste that will be deposited, should one of the sites be selected ultimately, will not necessarily be as dangerous as those who are concerned about the proposals would have us believe. We have a nuclear industry, whether we abandon it tomorrow or not, we know that industrial research involves the use and production of some radioactive material, and we know that medical research and treatment in hospitals leads in certain areas to radioactive byproducts. It follows, therefore, that we must address ourselves to the disposal of radioactive material.
I do not believe that the nuclear industry will be served by foisting on those who live around any one of the four sites a near-surface disposal facility when they do not consent to the same, when they do not want it, and when they object wholeheartedly to it.
624
My constituency is about 18 miles from the proposed site of South Killingholme and objection to the proposal has been mobilised in the constituency to tremendous effect. I believe that more than 120,000 people in the Humberside area have signed a petition that rejects the proposal, especially on the south bank. The people do not want it, principally because they are afraid of the consequences and implications.
I do not believe that we can get the public to accept the proposed disposal facilities unless they are fully informed, unless they understand, and unless they give their consent. If, in the face of overwhelming objections, the Government, or NIREX, proceed to survey the sites, go through the process of a public planning inquiry and ultimately select a site—we know that one will be selected, whatever may be said now—no good will be done to the nuclear industry. I speak on behalf of a constituency where steel is made, and if there is one thing that is important to the steel industry it is cheap energy. Even if we accept that the radioactive waste that we are discussing is safe and can be disposed of in the way that is proposed, it is arrogant of the Government and NIREX to proceed in the face of opposition of the sort that now exists.
Only France and the United States are using near-surface disposal facilities. They are not doing it in Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden. Belgium. Finland or, from the point of view of containment, in France. All those countries are using deep geological disposal methods for all waste—not just for intermediate and high-level waste, but for low-level waste, too. It is impossible to persuade the public that this type of facility is suitable for low-level waste when all those countries have decided that it is not suitable and are using alternative methods.
This policy does not depend upon demonstrating to right hon. and hon. Members or to experts that this method is safe. Safety is not the issue. The issue is public acceptability, consent, understanding and knowledge. If consent or acceptance cannot be obtained in the face of such objections, the Government run the risk of losing the nuclear argument altogether. If, willy-nilly, this policy is thrust down people's throats, the momentum of objections will build up to such an extent that the nuclear argument will be lost.
Therefore, I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—who no doubt, as soon as I got to my feet, went somewhere else—that they should look at the alternatives. They should examine what the countries that I have mentioned have done. They should consider deep sea disposal and deep-mined disposal. We know that Drigg can be used for another 25 years. If the Government have responded to public pressure by making a concession on intermediate-level nuclear waste, I urge them to respond in the same way to the disposal of low -level waste.
No research whatsoever seems to have been carried out in the United Kingdom into the method of disposal of this type of waste. There should be a period of reflection, investigation and research. Unless at the end of the day the British public—I speak in particular of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigiz and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—can be persuaded that this type of facility is desirable, the Government run the risk of losing the nuclear industry argument altogether.
8.22 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: The issues that have to be faced in this debate are safety of technology and information about that technology. The nuclear industry is a public industry. A massive amount of public money is invested in it. Such a high level of public investment means that there must be full public accountability.
I was pleased that the Secretary of State for the Environment told us at the beginning of the debate that all kinds of incidents will now be reported. Responsible station managers in the Central Electricity Generating Board, such as the present manager at Trawsfynydd, are already doing that. That is because the public in the Trawsfynydd area, the media, myself and others demand it. Any incident at that station is reported immediately to members of the local liaison committee and to the media in the locality. That must apply to all stations and to all nuclear installations.
After his statement this afternoon, I assume that the Secretary of State for Environment will make it clear that all incidents, of whatever type—whether or not they relate to a reactor, or whether they are engineering or nuclear incidents in the stricter sense of the term where there is radiological danger or the minutest radiological emission, either on site or off site—should immediately be reported.
There must be openness and accountability about the way in which the effects of the Chernobyl disaster were reported in Britain and discussed in Britain by representatives of the nuclear industry. There must also be openness and accountability about the way in which the amounts of radioactive fissile material that affected our environment were treated. I wish to refer briefly to each of those issues, and I shall begin with the last, the level of discharges in this country.
Britain is not geared to monitoring effectively a release of fissile material into the atmosphere. Confused data from different sources were released. I live in an area that is close to a nuclear power station which has its own district monitoring sytem. Both I and the people who work at the station knew reasonably clearly that there was a massively increased level of radioactivity, compared with the background level, in that area following the high rainfall of that weekend. I had telephone calls both at home and at my office from staff at the station who were concerned about the fact that the levels of radioactivity that they were monitoring had not been made public.
The use of the CEGB network, on behalf of the National Radiological Protection Board, to provide material meant that in certain localities there was a fairly good picture of what was going on. However, it appears that the amount of information that was made available by the NRPB, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office was completely inadequate. The information was confused and it was not properly interpreted.
I am particularly concerned about the level of radioactive iodine in milk. I am concerned that a political decision might have been taken either by MAFF or by the Department of the Environment that the real levels of radioactive iodine that were being measured in milk during that period of high rainfall should not be released to the
626
public and were not used to advise Ministers that there should be a cessation of milk consumption. particularly by young people and children.
The levels that were reached were at least 30 per cent. of the derived emergency reference levels, not only in milk, but in rainfall. Those were levels at which action should have been taken. We are dealing not with absolute levels but with levels which have been laid down relative to what is regarded as tolerable.
There is increasing argument about the so-called permitted dosage. This issue concerns me as a representative of nuclear power workers. It also concerns me as the representative of constituents who live in a high rainfall area. We need to look carefully at the way in which this information was handled and disseminated to the public. We need also to look at the ministerial action that was taken on this information.
Many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the initial statements by the relevant Departments and, indeed, the statements made to the House by the Secretary of State for the Environment, were misleading. When he made his initial statement to the House, the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that water and milk were safe, but he did not make it clear whether he was referring to aggregate United Kingdom levels, or to specific areas, or whether he was speaking in general terms. The quality of the data that were available from different areas in the United Kingdom was insufficient to enable the public to decide whether they wanted to consume milk or to expose their children to that hazard.
Conservative Members have today used a spurious argument about the risk factors that are involved in different levels of exposure during different kinds of activity—what I call the cigarette syndrome. This argument no longer washes with the public. The public need to know the additional risk to which they are exposed from radiation from the nuclear power industry, the generating industry and, finally, from the nuclear processing industry. The public will not be fobbed off with spurious comparisons.
Certain spokespersons for the nuclear power industry, and certain right hon. and hon. Members said in a programme in which I took part earlier this week that if the public were given the information about the number of becquerels involved and other technical information they would not understand it. but it is of the same kind of complexity as the pollen count. Information about the pollen count is given regularly throughout the summer as part of our weather forecasts. If we had a proper level of scientific education in Britain, people would be capable of understanding information presented in specific terms. We do not have that yet, but we might have it as a result of the public interest now aroused. We must ensure that the figures are made available.
The second issue is not about information on the specific dosages and the results of exposure to the effects of the cloud, but about the lessons that Britain's nuclear industry must learn. I am concerned that experts in the nuclear industry should not only suggest that such an incident could not happen in this country, but apparently imply that there is no possible Chernobyl scenario for the existing reactor systems in Britain. I have lived close to the old type of Magnox reactor, so I am especially concerned that people are pretending that the combination of materials inside the Chernobyl reactor is not inside British reactors.

627
Lord Walter Marshall has made the famous statement that the reactor systems in Britain have forms of containment that are not available in the Soviet Union. I know the Trawsfynydd reactor intimately. I have seen it from all possible angles, except from inside. That reactor, like all the old Magnox reactors, does not have secondary containment. It has the major vessel and the biological shield, but the steam generating gas loops come out of the reactor vessel. That applies to all of the old Magnox reactors. The newer forms of reactors have a larger pressure vessel that contains the engineering aspects. The Magnox gas-cooled reactor is different from the form of coolant in the Soviet model. However, it is wrong to suggest that it is not possible to have a loss of coolant through a loss of gas from the Magnox reactors. Indeed, that has happened on a small scale and for example, water ingress to the reactor and loss of coolant.
To pretend that has not happened is to deny the information held by those who follow the nuclear debate. There may he a scenario that has a minimal risk, but as a result of Chernobyl the public now perceive that those pundits of the nuclear industry who have said that it could not happen here have been misleading them. The Secretary of State has picked up the new mood—even if some of his hon. Friends have not—of serious questioning and concern.
I represent a constituency which contains a nuclear power station employing 600 people. What will happen to communities such as Trawsfynydd if the climate of opinion in Britain means that we will not invest in a massive replacement of the Magnox generation? We may not build AGRs and we will certainly not build PWRs. There is an objection on the Opposition Benches, and by many Conservative Members, to constructing PWRs in Britain, whatever the Sizewell inquiry recommends. What will happen to communities, many in areas of high unemployment, which are dependent upon the nuclear industry? The Government and the Opposition must face that question. We must ensure that jobs are maintained in those areas. We want assurances now about jobs in areas such as Trawsfynydd which have the old Magnox stations which face decommissioning. We must tackle the issue now, not defer it until 1990 or 1995.
8.34 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: Conservation has been mentioned several times tonight, not least by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is appropriate in this debate to say that we are products of our environment. I was at university during the late 1960s and early 1970s, when there was great concern about conservation of the environment and the safety of the civil nuclear industry. The two, of course, are inextricably linked.
In succeeding years it is not surprising that, in the battle for our very economic survival, those issues have been pushed into a backwater inhabited mainly by the far Left and political eccentrics. It is no less surprising that, now that the success of the Government's economic policies has given the country sustained growth and low inflation, there should once again be more talk about the environment, and I welcome that. I especially welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Local Government to ensure that the Conservative party dons its rightful mantle as the conservor of and carer for our environment.
628
We have to make two decisions on the nuclear industry—on Sizewell and on the disposal of nuclear waste—that raise fundamental issues about the future of our nuclear policy and concern about our environment. We are standing as it were on the threshold of a busy thoroughfare—traffic is coming towards us at great speed from the left and the right. I do not argue that we should stand still for ever or that we should vegetate on one spot, but we should stop, think, look and, above all, listen. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—it is time to pause for reflection.
There is no overwhelming urgency about either decision. There is no rule requiring elected, accountable—and, it must be said, disposable—Ministers to proceed at the behest of an unelected and unaccountable body such as NIREX, and to do so at a rapid pace. Much as we regret the publicity surrounding Sellafield—unfair as much of it may be—much as we regret the disaster at Chernobyl and much as it may be true that we rejected that design of reactor many years ago, public confidence in the nuclear industry has been shaken. We cannot ignore that fact.
I listened with great respect and care to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and I agreed with much of what he said. However, the fact is that public confidence has been shaken. The incident at Chernobyl has proved the argument put forward for many years by those of us in the National Council for Civil Defence against official complacency and for more resources to be put into civil defence. The radioactive cloud that drifted towards Lincoln did not part like the Red sea when it appeared over the nuclear-free city—it carried on. We need effective civil defence, whatever our civil or military nuclear policies.
I do not believe that it is statesmenlike or resolute to fly in the face of public concern about the nuclear industry and to proceed regardless, without pausing for reflection. That is merely foolish. Ina few days, 12,000 of my constituents—who were not given much time by the Government for consultation—signed a petition collected by West Lindsey district council objecting to the disposal of waste in Humberside and Lincolnshire. Barring a handful, they are not Greenpeace activists or flower-shaking dropouts—they are decent folk from villages and small towns who are both worried and concerned, and to whose views the Government should listen with sympathy and concern. They need reassurance.
I am the first to welcome the Government's decision to restrict the disposal of nuclear waste in shallow trenches to low-level waste. I know that we are now talking in terms of overalls and the like used in the nuclear industry and in hospitals. I know that the risks are small and I welcome the Government's concession, but I and my constituents need to be told the facts in full. My constituents need even more reassurance. Until they receive it, I cannot support the Government by voting for NIREX to be given powers to drill in either South Killirigholme or Fulbeck.
I repeat what I have said before in the House: that we in Lincolnshire cannot merely say, "Put nuclear waste anywhere, except on our doorsteps, please." No Government can govern on that basis, ignoring the national interest. Ultimately, waste must be put in the best, that is the safest, geological site. The moral is clear, and has been pointed out by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and my hon.

629
Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg): Do as the Swedes do at Forsmark; put it in mines under the sea. Obviously, that is expensive, but if we are to have a successful, progressive nuclear industry, it must enjoy public confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) said clearly, if we ignore the need for consent by the local population, we may put our entire nuclear industry at risk. No expense can be spared in ensuring that confidence.
I know that the volume of waste is large. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment talked about its being equivalent to eight Victoria towers in the Palace of Westminster. Would he like eight Victoria towers of low-level nuclear waste in his Mole Valley constituency or next door? We cannot ignore or despise public concern. My right hon. Friend mentioned the date 2010 when the Drigg site will be full. Does that not give us time for pause and reflection?
There is a perfectly good case to be made for the continued survival and growth of our nuclear industry in terms of the need for abundant and cheap energy to ensure our competitiveness. During the past 10 years, no fatality has been directly attributed to the nuclear industry in this country. It is necessary not to depend on militants in the coalfields, and the desirability of a four-fuel economy.
Safe nuclear power can legitimately be defended as better for the environment and for conservation than traditional coal-guzzling power stations. However, the analogy of standing on the edge of a busy road holds good. I beg the Government not to rush decisions, but to conduct a massive campaign, not of propaganda, but of information, and to reflect on the words written by William Deedes this weekend. When he was the Minister of Information in the 1963 Government, he was asked to conduct a massive campaign of information, not propaganda, on joining the European Community.
No expense should be spared on the campaign to explain patiently and at length where we are now and where we are going. If necessary, we should put the declared outcome of that consultation exercise in the manifesto, and let the people decide. That is fair, honourable, democratic and popular, and I commend it to the House.
8.42 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall concentrate on the central issue of the debate, which is nuclear waste disposal. The spine of the debate seems to be a commitment by the Government to get waste disposal dumps under way, preferably cheaply, and certainly as quickly as possible.
The Government seem committed to that because they see it as a prelude, first to the expansion of the reprocessing industry, as if it were Britain's destiny to act as the nuclear laundry for the rest of the world, and, secondly, to an expansion of the nuclear programme. The Government see the problem of nuclear waste as a bottleneck delaying both expansions. There is no need for that impetuous commitment. The waste can be stored and Drigg is not full and has many years of service to come. The CEGB will do whatever it is told regarding storage. There is no need for this rush, but the Government are committed to it.
630
The Environment Select Committee has shown clearly what is wrong. Theirs is the first considered strategy with an intellectual base of research which has been presented to us. It is the first basic rethink on dumping and reprocessing. In Committeespeak, which is always fairly guarded, a strong case has been made out against both. The two are closely interconnected, whatever Ministers may say, because reprocessing produces 70 per cent. or more of the low-level waste involved. I have received confused answers from the Department of the Environment. One states that waste and reprocessed material will be placed in the dumps, and another states that they will not be, yet the answers were only six weeks apart. The two problems are interconnected.
The Select Committee's report is so good that it certainly should have been considered before any special development order on nuclear dumping sites is laid. It would be unforgivable to put the SDO first. Yet the Government are, in effect, doing just that. This is an inadequate half-baked reply to the report. We should be dealing with the report as a whole today, not merely with the little bits to which the Government have chosen to reply. The report hangs together as a whole and presents a considered new approach to the Government's strategy.
The Government, by replying to the report in bits, are changing their justifications for their nuclear waste programme, which is to continue. They are more apologetic about it, but it must continue. They make sympathetic noises about Chernobyl, but they are to soldier on with their commitment as if nothing had happened.
The Government's reply deals with only 13 of the 43 recommendations, and three of those recommendations are dealt with by half-baked responses, such as that "serious consideration should he given" to the matter. Only one recommendation has been accepted: to exclude intermediate-level waste from trench dumpings. The Government have ignored the recommendations on deep geological disposal, on dose limitations for the public, which I would have thought was central to the location and nature of the dumps, on reprocessing, on institutional responsibility, on co-ordination, on transport, on research and development and on the public.
To ignore all that is to produce a silly, shabby strategy which does not interfere with the Government's onward rush to nuclear dumping. It has led to an inadequate reply, and a messy debate tonight, because we have been mixing Chernobyl and Killingholme, CND and questions about the Select Committee's report, as if they were all one great glorious mess. The Government, backed by a three-line Whip, will refuse to change and smuggle through their rejection of what the Select Committee recommends them to do. The Government have treated the Select Committee with contempt. Their real concern is to get on with the special development order.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the rumour, and seek reassurance from the Government Front Bench, that that SDO may be laid within hours?
Mr. Mitchell: I hope that that is not so, and that the Front Bench will assure us that it is not so. It would be a dirty trick of the first magnitude to follow this inadequate debate with an SDO. The Select Committee report has knocked away the intellectual basis of the Government's policy, yet the Government persevere with their policy.

631
As soon as the SDO is laid, blight will begin on the four areas affected. The mere mention of the SDO means blight in terms of development, house prices and prospects, which will continue throughout the long period of research and examination until the eventual decision. That blight will be foisted on those areas without proper consultation, against the wishes of the inhabitants, and without any intellectual justification.
The Government are not doing several things mentioned in the report. It said that the Department of the Environment must be able to demonstrate to the public that the sites were selected logically and systematically. The Government will not tell us whether that is so, because they will not tell us the basis for the selection. How can local authorities object to the selection when they do not know its basis? How can they argue in those circumstances?
The report states that people need to know that the choice of their area is not simply the result of some quirk or quite extraneous factor, such as site ownership. Yet the choice is based on site ownership. It is convenient that either the Government or a NIREX partner owns all four sites. That is why South Killingholme has been picked. It is not suitable in any other way than that it is convenient for the Government because they burnt their fingers with ICI on Teeside and do not want to be in that situation again. The Minister admitted that that was the case in his presentation of the NIREX letter to the House.
The report says that the Department should shortlist, but it will not do so. It prefers to accept that work from NIREX. The report says that the Department should not go for the cheap option, but it is doing so. This is a cheap and nasty option, which is used in very few other countries. Are Sweden, Germany and other countries less immune to radiation than we are? Why have so many other countries refused to go for the option which the Department is trying to foist on us—a most dangerous option?
The report says that alpha emitters should be excluded from the waste. The Department says that there will be "very small" quantities of alpha emitters, of toxic wastes and of trace elements. It is not observing what the report wants. In other words, the Department of the Environment, in its reply to the Select Committee on the Environment, is abandoning its responsibility to protect the environment and serve the people who live in that environment. It is acting as if it were the political arm of NIREX, not a Department with responsibility for people and the environment. It has a higher destiny, role and responsibility than that.
There have been massive evasions and sudden changes in the basis of the dumping programme. The exclusion of intermediate-level wastes shows that the Department has not even thought the business through before starting the decision-making process. My constituency and those of other hon. Members where dumping is threatened get no benefit from the nuclear programme. I know that some hon. Members have said that these areas will get nuclear power, but so will London, and it is not argued that the dump should be placed in London, which uses so much of the power. No one has asked to be blighted in this way. Ministers simply want to get something—anything—decided.
What has been done in the nuclear dumping programme is foolish, unjustifiable and unforgiveable. It will not be forgiven, and it certainly will not be accepted.
8.53 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: There is one consolation in speaking towards the end of the debate—one can look over the labyrinth of the hours and meditate. One finds that the abolitionists have been at work. Some wish for the destruction of THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—at Sellafield, and of the nuclear fuel cycle. BNFL has secured overseas contracts worth £2·5 billion, all of which would be liable to be lost. Much of the cost of THORP has been paid for by the customers, and there are 50,000 jobs involved in BNFL investment, all of which will go by the board.
Some questions should be raised. We are likely to approach the end of the century with an incomplete electricity capacity. At the moment, we have 9,029 megawatts of nuclear capacity, and replacement is required not merely for the de-commissioning of the Magnox reactors in the 1990s but for the retirement of certain coal-fired power stations, and for the expansion of demand. I cannot see, with the long lead time involved—eight years or more—that the construction of suitable capacity by 2000 AD can be achieved. The Minister will have to work that out himself.
This has been a debate on many topics, and I know that the special development orders will come later. I hope that many of our remarks will be fully debated in about a week's time.
The Chernobyl reactors have serious defects and the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee has giver an analysis to its members of what caused the trouble in the one that exploded. How can we incriminate an industry in the United Kingdom upon the chance destruction of one Russian reactor, when some 370 reactors are operating in 25 countries and have been performing reasonably well over the past 30 years? The nuclear industry is under the shadow of political paralysis. A serious industry has become a plaything of political expediency. Confidence must be rebuilt, but not destroyed on the evidence of a single example. That would be like people saying that, because one house has burnt down, there will he devastation across the country. That is not the case.
If we have a nuclear industry, we must do something about it. The economics of necessity projected France into the nuclear age, and political expediency has bequeathed lost opportunities to the United Kingdom. The commercial reactors were first commissioned in the United Kingdom in 1962, and in France in 1965, but 24 years later, of total electricity, some 65 per cent. is generated by nuclear power in France and only 20 per cent. in the United Kingdom. For Belgium the figure is 60 per cent., for Sweden 43 per cent. and for Scotland—where power is cheaper than in England—some 40 per cent.
The total number of reactors worldwide is 374, plus another 150 under construction. Are we going to say that, because of an accident in one Russian reactor, of a type that we do not accept in the West, that had broken all the rules in the books—rules that we in the West do not break because we realise that precautions have to be taken—we have committed such a grave error?
I felt that the report of the Select Committee on the Environment would have been more balanced, and less one-sided, if it had been put together with the Select Committee on Energy. Perhaps there is no precedent for this, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy may have something to say. My right hon. Friend

633
has already made a useful concession in that low-level waste only is to be included in the chosen of these optional sites. It will be recollected that Bedfordshire asked for consideration of sites additional to that at Elstow. There are now four sites, so why are some hon. Members against all four of them?
The four sites must be compared on their merits. One option may be accepted, or all four may be rejected. The acceptable site, in judgment, is likely to be on the coast or on property owned by the Ministry of Defence, property that may be remote from the population centres, and therefore more acceptable than a site close to a population centre, as in Bedford. The report on the best practicable environmental options from the Department of the Environment says:
"It must therefore be concluded that near-surface disposal is the BPEO for over 80 per cent. by volume of all the waste considered."
I hope that the House will consider that point, even though part of the waste has been eliminated.
Hon. Members should bear in mind that more than 50 per cent. of the waste comes from the nuclear industry but from hospitals, industrial establishments, and so on. I hope that they will bear in mind also that, because of the strict rules which have been laid down, the risk of a fatality occurring in the nuclear industry is one in 1 million, compared with the risk at work of one in 40,000 and the risk from an accident in the home of one in 20,000.
We must be constructive if we are to have any sort of nuclear policy in the United Kingdom. It is not much good destroying everything in sight and hoping that we can create another industry out of the ashes. We have been told that there are alternative energy sources—that we could utilise that waste in the sea, but we do not know how to do that and that windmills could dot the countryside, like our population, but we do not know whether that approach will succeed in meeting United Kingdom requirements.
All over the globe nuclear power stations operate safely and there is no reason to suppose at this stage that great difficulties will arise anywhere, except perhaps in the Soviet Union. There was not a single death in the Three Mile Island incident in the United States. We should consider the number of miners in the pits and the numbers who have tried to extract black oil from the North sea who have been killed.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Trevor Skeet: No, Sir. I have only a short time to speak and I must bear in mind my colleagues' requirements.
By considering the matter in a balanced way and taking the positive approach, one sees the nuclear industry in an entirely different light. Let us have wisdom, not folly.
9 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Labour's amendment calls for a safer industry, and I wholeheartedly agree. I am conscious of the fact that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and in my constituency 22,500 people are either directly or indirectly dependent on the nuclear industry. I say to those of my hon. Friends who call for the industry's closure that putting those people
634
on the dole, over the space of a couple of years, would have a catastrophic effect. West Cumberland could not support such unemployment, and no hon. Member has the right to impose so many redundancies on my constituents.
We in west Cumberland have been led to believe that our economy was to be built on the basis of a civil nuclear programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made crucial decisions under a Labour Government, which included ordering two power stations. He made an even more crucial decision to develop a reprocessing plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. In the past seven years, that £1·4 billion project has transformed west Cumberland's infrastructure and industrial development.
Only last week in my constituency I attended the opening of a factory which is devoted to the development of nuclear power. About 40 per cent. of its orders come from just one project, THORP. That is the real world in which we must live. It is unreasonable for any Government to lay out a pattern of industrial development in constituencies such as mine and Copeland, and then, because of a series of incidents at Sellafield, which arose only because of management's incompetence, and because of a stupid series of decisions in the Soviet Union, which lead to the construction of the RBMK plant—which everyone now says is unsafe—seven years later place a huge question mark over the future of employment in west Cumberland.
The recommendation of some to close the reprocessing plant at Sellafield is out. We cannot proceed on that basis. The industry itself has recognised that it is necessary to tighten up. Over the years I have seen massive investment in the nuclear power industry in west Cumberland to reduce discharges. About £450 million has been invested in three plants which are now coming, on stream. By 1991, a £150 million investment will be in place in the Floc precipitation plant. which will dramatically reduce discharges. Alpha emitters will drop from 5,000 curies a year in 1973 to 20 a year by 1991. Beta emitters will drop from 200,000 in 1973 to 8,000 in 1991. This will make it one of the safest civil nuclear processing plants in the world. It is on that basis that I say to the House that we should be very careful when we consider the recommendations that are being made in some quarters. The problem is that people do not realise, understand or recognise the massive investment that is taking place to reduce the level of discharge from the nuclear industry.
I want to comment on the confused debate that takes place about the nuclear industry. The confusion that has arisen from statements that have been made by Ministers, the industry and lobbies outside over the years has led to a series of errors in the way in which people in responsible positions present their case. Too often, those errors have led to lies that have been propagated in all quarters. Too often the lie, in turn, has been manipulated to become the propaganda of the day. The problem is that the industry is riddled with misrepresentations and it is very hard to know where to start to re-establish the truth.
I have been to meetings where I have heard things said which I know have been untrue. When I have challenged them, I have been howled down by people who insist on living by the misrepresentation. In that climate of hysteria it is impossible to get over a decent and reasonable argument about the industry. I have even gone to meetings

635
where I have misrepresented the facts, not deliberately, but because I have been misled by people whom I regarded as responsible authorities.
There was the statement by the Energy Minister in 1983, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. When the Minister was asked whether there was a connection between the Central Electricity Generating Board's nuclear power station and the manufacture of nuclear weapons, he said:
"There is no such connection. No plutonium produced in any of the CEGB's nuclear power stations has ever been used for military purposes in this country. and there are no plans to use it thus in the future. Further, no plutonium from the CEGB nuclear programme has ever been exported for use in weapons."—[Official Report, 4 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 206.]
We now know that that is not true. I have been telling people that that is the truth. How can we, who actually believe in the industry, be credible when we accept statements from the Minister at the Dispatch Box in good faith which turn out to be untrue in the course of inquiry, in this case the Sizewell inquiry?
When Lord Marshall was asked during the television programme "TV Eye" whether the plutonium had been used for military purposes, he replied:
"I don't know what it was used for, but it has gone into the military stockpile. There is no secret about that."
I received an indignant letter the other day from a constituent who cannot understand why we are so inconsistent. He said:
"I want to draw your attention to the article in 'Sanity' about the diversion to the military stockpile of plutonium produced in the CEGB civil reactors. I am outraged that in order to support its case for building a second reactor at Sizewell the CEGB's chief witness, John Baker, committed perjury, at least, if, as I presume, his evidence was on oath or affirmation. I feel this is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions."
He went on to talk about his further outrage at the fact that
"the Report by the Inspector of the Sizewell Public Inquiry is bound to consider only evidence there presented."
He pleaded with me to raise this matter in the House, and I am doing so.
There are many people in my constituency who feel as strongly as that. They want to know why the case is being misrepresented in this way. I appeal to the Secretary of State. We want an open, honest and honourable regime, where all the facts are made available. It is only in that climate that we can win the argument. I say to the Secretary of State that unless that climate is created in the United Kingdom, we shall never win that argument, and in the end we shall lose the industry.
9.9 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This debate takes place in the shadow of the Chernobyl disaster. However, in the few remaining minutes available, I should like to try to broaden it out into a consideration of whether we should continue with our nuclear programme, and look at the matter on a world basis.
I have been disappointed by some of the parochialism in the contributions to the debate, particularly by the Labour party, which used to be the party of internationalism. The supply and demand for energy in this country is only a small part of the global picture. There is little doubt that the population of the world will more than double some time in the next century before it finally stabilises. The energy requirements of the developing world will increase even faster than that. The economic
636
growth that those countries will need to feed themselves and provide themselves with the basic necessities will require energy.
Most of the responsible studies that I have seen suppose that the global demand for energy will more than double in the next 25 years, even with the most optimistic projections on conservation. I do not see, and I have not heard during the debate, how we can get through the next 25 years without nuclear energy.
Hon. Members have said that coal will play a major part. It is true that the same studies suppose that part of the gap will be closed by the additional production and use of coal, but can we continue to plunder the earth of its fossil fuels? Apart from anything else, coal, oil and gas create their own pollution. We have heard about acid rain and the ash produced by coal-fired power stations. We have heard how the combustion of fossil fuels uses up oxygen and produces carbon dioxide. We have heard about the possible greenhouse effect, with the heating up of the planet and the consequential melting of the polar ice caps. I wish that some of the enthusiasts for the coal industry would give equal attention to some of the long-term effects of the industry that they so enthusiastically champion.
Perhaps this is the main point. Fossil fuels are exhaustible. Will we pass on to future generations an earth that has been stripped of its easily accessible fossil fuels; an earth with a teaming population with a voracious appetite for energy; an earth where we have denied people the technical means to produce the energy that they require?
That is why I support nuclear energy. It behoves the advanced industrial countries to make use of that form of power so that we can leave the fossil fuels to the less developed, poorer nations. It is not that nuclear energy is a magic solution. To me, it has always represented an opportunity, to be controlled, managed and harnessed. Of course there are risks, but some are very small. The routine, normal discharges from the nuclear power industry in this country contribute much less than 1 per cent. to the normal background radiation to which every one of us is exposed every day of our lives. That is certainly a great deal less damaging to health, and in every other way, than most other forms of industrial pollution.
I was a little nervous to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment suggest that every untoward radiological emission from the nuclear power industry should be reported and published. Does he really mean every untoward unauthorised emission? If so. he must include the coal industry. As we all know, there is a great deal of uranium ore in coal, which comes out by way of ash. If, during the normal operation of a coal-fired power station, the dust suppressors or effluent scrubbers are not working, presumably on a day-to-day basis there is a steep rise in the amount of radiation coming out of the power station. Is the Secretary of State going to put such a requirement on that industry? I would like a response on that from my right hon. Friend or from any other hon. Member who believes that the nuclear industry is unique in that respect.
Of course routine emissions should be further reduced, but if we are rational, we realise that it is better, if we are interested in saving lives, to concentrate on the many other sources of avoidable accidents caused by cars, aeroplanes and dams.

637
The nuclear industry in this country is spending millions of pounds on reducing the number of cancer deaths resulting from emissions from the industry from two deaths a year to one death. That money would be better spent on finding a cure for cancer, because hundreds of thousands of people all over the world would be saved.
My main concern—I am sure it is the main concern of the population—is not about routine emissions, but about the possibility of a major disaster. Almost the worst possible kind of disaster happened at Chernobyl. That was worse than the incident at Three Mile Island, where the Kemeny report showed that no one was killed as a result of the accident. We do not know the whole story about Chernobyl, but I hope that we do learn the facts. I would guess that the final death toll from the long-term cancer effects of the Chernobyl disaster will be far less than the 2,000 people who died at Bhopal in India. I do not think that we should close down the world's chemical industry because of the Bhopal disaster; equally, I do not think that we should seriously contemplate closing down the world's nuclear industry because of one accident in a badly designed reactor in the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), in a brave speech, gave certain assurances about what a future Labour Government might do. In passing, he said that none of Britain's nuclear power stations was ordered by a Conservative Government. The corollary of that is, of course, that they were all ordered by a Labour Government. It is strange that Opposition Members have so dramatically shifted their position. If we are in a mess out of which we must get, it is a mess which the Opposition have created.
It is startling that the Opposition should flatly turn down the possibility of a programme of PWR reactors before the Sizewell report has been published. The Labour party is always keen to have commissions, reports and inquiries. However, it has turned down any recommendations that the Sizewell report might make, even before the scientific evidence has been sifted and published.
Of course, there are lessons for the United Kingdom to learn. The nuclear industry has the most to gain from maximum disclosure. It is my experience that the more people know about the industry, the more willing they are to replace emotion and suspicion with a rational assessment of the risks. There is a need for clear, timely and acceptable information of a technical nature and of a more simple kind that the man in the street can understand. If that means organisational changes at Government level, so be it.
When submitting parliamentary questions about the nuclear industry, I have found that they tend to be shifted and shunted around between the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We must know who is responsible for what and who will publish the information.
The nuclear industry has the most to gain from being open and accessible. It is heartening that 180,000 people annually visit Britain's nuclear power stations and Sellafield. That is not enough. In France, 500,000 people visit nuclear power plants. As a result, it would seem that 60 per cent. of French people are in favour of their nuclear programme. Another factor may be that electricity in France is 20 per cent. cheaper than in Britain.
638
There are, of course, still technical, political and social hurdles to be cleared if we are to have a successful and continuing nuclear power programme. It is a paradox that although a great deal is known about the physics of radiation and the engineering aspects of radioactivity and although radiation is easy to detect and measure, the public still consider it to be mysterious.
We should not fall into the trap of leaving everything to the experts. The industry must create a partnership with the public and encourage maximum discussion. Some hon. Members have their own private reasons and interests for other ways of producing energy. Some are told what to say, and perhaps even what to think, by their trade union sponsors. But the rest of us have a duty to try to explain to the public the facts behind the industry. I endorse everything that has been said this evening about the need for maximum disclosure.
I end on a note of caution. In discussing this matter there is a danger that we will shift attention from what I consider to be the main threat to mankind—the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is no direct correlation between a civil nuclear programme and a military nuclear programme. The fact that a country may possess a civil reactor does not enable it to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Similarly, the fact that a country does not possess a civil reactor does not. I am afraid, preclude it from obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium from a research reactor which is separate and distinct from any civil programme. That is the main danger.
We should be turning our attention to how we can encourage international inspection and increase the number of signatories to the non-proliferation treaty of 1968. Far too much concentration on the dangers of civil nuclear power leads to such facts being overlooked.
This has been a helpful debate, but we should never forget that the legacy that we must bequeath to the people is not one of an earth stripped of its fossil fuels. That would be far more dangerous than bequeathing to them the shorter term problem of the disposal of nuclear waste.
9.21 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: The magnitude of the disaster at Chernobyl has focused public attention on the issue of nuclear power. Therefore, it is right that the debate has ranged across the whole issue of Britain's nuclear power programme—the reprocessing of waste and every other aspect. It would not be possible to separate the issues of radioactive waste disposal from the power programme that creates that waste.
Public perception of nuclear power has been changing over the past few years. The Sizewell B inquiry and the publicity over Sellafield have heightened public awareness. The disaster at Chernobyl has further increased public fears. That has been underlined by many hon. Members on both sides of the House in what has been an important debate this evening.
Opinion polls show that increasing numbers of people oppose any further development of nuclear power, and nothing that the Government have done or said has allayed those fears.
The Secretary of State lost no time in making his position clear in an article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday 2 May. He and his colleagues have launched a great deal of criticism at the Soviet Union for its lack of openness. He said:

639
"there would have been no disaster at Chernobyl had the Soviet Union followed the procedures of the democracies."
His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), described the disaster as
"the failures of this furtive, secretive, over-centralised and inefficient society".
The Prime Minister joined in to emphasise Britain's openness compared with the secretive approach of the Soviet Union. Yet the self-same obsession with secrecy has dominated Britain's nuclear industry.
I can describe that attitude no better than the Financial Times did yesterday when it said that
"secrecy, suppression, denial, evasion, subterfuge arrogance, and bland reassurance"
have been the watchwords for the conduct of the nuclear industry in 13ritain. The reasons for that can only be, again as the Financial Times states, that the nuclear power industry is tied up with, and the by-product of, nuclear weapons.
The Secretary of State for Energy has declared that he will introduce a policy of total openness. He is reported as saying:
"I desire to have no secrecy of any description, and the way to get public confidence is to make sure there is no secrecy."
He does not explain how this would be achieved other than by changing the highly technical language which the industry uses.
The undoubted links between civil and military nuclear power will make the right hon. Gentleman's task even more difficult. With Labour's policy of decommissioning Polaris and ending the Trident programme, the production of weapons grade material will be halted. The military need for secrecy will be vastly reduced and full public accountability can be achieved.
Meanwhile, will the Government take meaningful steps towards total openness by repealing the relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911? In the new spirit of international co-operation on civil nuclear power, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House whether he is prepared to grant full access to Euratom, the EEC's nuclear agency—access that has been under discussion since he was responsible for energy in a previous Tory Administration?
The Secretary of State has repeated several times that the accident at Chernobyl could not happen here. We know that the mechanics are different. The Magnox reactors share one design weakness which became evident at Chernobyl—there is no secondary containment to trap emissions in the event of an explosion rupturing the pressure vessel. Mr. Eddie Ryder, chief inspector of nuclear installations has said that the reactors
"probably would not be licensed today."
There are also similarities between the RMBK and the American PWR. Both depend upon a rapid and regular flow of water under high pressure to prevent overheating. An accident in a similar reactor led to the incident at Three Mile Island. In that incident, children and pregnant women within a five-mile radius were evacuated and thousands more left of their own accord. What is important is that the presidential commission that investigated the accident concluded that the fundamental cause was operator error. Nothing can be done to prevent human error, and nothing can compensate for it.
Since the inception of nuclear power, there has been a succession of worldwide accidents—none of them as dramatic or serious as Chernobyl. Senator John Glenn has quoted from a classified United States document that there
640
have been 151 significant nuclear safety incidents in the past 15 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to this.
That statement refutes the claim made by the right hon. Member for Guildford in an article in the Sunday Express on 4 May that, all around the globe, nuclear power stations are being run without harm or pollution. The Government are resting on their laurels when they say that the British nuclear industry's safety record is second to none.
The Secretary of State should have made a statement to Parliament regarding the recent incident at Dungeness. Why, in the new spirit of openness, was that not done? I do not wish to add to public anxiety or to scaremonger, but the people wish to know about this issue. The Government's complacency begs many questions the answers to which the House and the public are entitled to know. Most disturbing is the reported weakness of the nuclear installations inspectorate.
Last September, The Times reported that there were serious staff shortages at the nuclear installations inspectorate. At the end of 1985, The Times stated that more than 30 per cent. of the inspectorate staff would be nearing retirement age, but that a recruitment drive during the previous three years had produced only just more than a dozen members of staff and that it took at least two years to train inspectors. The chief inspector at the time said that the Sizewell inquiry had absorbed 25 per cent of the inspectorate's time, leaving other work to be delayed or left undone.
The NII told the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations that reviewing the safety of Britain's Magnox and AGR stations was straining staff and resources. It complained that it could not pay
"the desired amount of attention to industrial safety".
We are now told that none of the inspections of the Magnox stations is complete, and that there may be delays in the safety assessment of AGRs. The Secretary of State seems to find that funny, but the public are extremely concerned about the safety of the nuclear industry. They want to know why the inspectorate has been reduced and why there are insufficient people in that industry. The bland reassurances given by an Energy Minister in the House last year are not sufficient. The House must know what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the NII is adequately staffed to meet the inspectorate's great and increasing workload.
Ministers' attempts to convince Britain that all is well with nuclear power have failed, so what arguments are left? A major plank in the Government's attempt to sell nuclear power to the British people is that of cheaper electricity, yet the Department of Energy has admitted that modern coal-fired stations are cheaper to run than Magnox reactors. Recently, we have heard a lot from the Secretary of State about the benefit' of cheap electricity to the French as a result of their nuclear programme, but the reality of the French electricity industry is somewhat different.
Many people have argued that the price France is offering the United Kingdom amounts to a loss leader in an attempt to achieve at least some return on nuclear plant that would otherwise stand idle. The French electricity industry has lost money for the past two years, and its debt has soared to 200 billion francs. That has been criticised as "excessive" by the French watchdog body, which went on to state that the industry had made its investments
"in the most inappropriate manner".

641
Financial analysts have predicted that, because of that debt burden, the French electricity industry will be forced to increase its tariffs. So much for the long-term benefits of a massive nuclear power programme.
But even if the Secretary of State's belief that nuclear power will reduce electricity costs has some foundation, the British people now say that the benefit is not worth the risks involved. Yet the Government are not even prepared to pause and take stock of the nuclear power programme. Mr. Eddie Ryder, the chief nuclear inspector, forecast that there would be a period of reflection before further decisions were taken about the future of Britain's nuclear power programme. However, he has been proved wrong, because the Government have not taken a period of reflection. He apparently also forecast that the Government's emphasis would be on persuading the public that the risk of a serious accident was so remote that it was judged acceptable when set against the benefits of nuclear power. If that is the case, the public relations exercise is clearly not working.
The Government are so wholeheartedly committed to expanding their nuclear programme that other areas of research and development have become the poor relations. Nuclear research continues to expand, with over £300 million allocated annually from a variety of sources, compared with just £14 million for renewable, or benign, energy sources. As the Energy Committee stated in its report entitled, "Energy Research, Development and Demonstration in the United Kingdom":
"when the treatment of different aspects of energy R & D is so glaringly inconsistent, it is difficult to be satisfied that a sensible balance of priorities has been arrived at."
Renewables are an investment for the future. We accept that they will form only a percentage of supply, but even the CEGB admitted in evidence to the Sizewell B inquiry that it could accept a contribution of up to 20 per cent. from a mix of renewable resources without operational problems. That is far from a "marginal" contribution. By the end of the decade, the question of renewable sources will have become a serious issue. In consequence, we may find that that will be very important.
When the Gas Bill was in Committee, we attempted to induce the Government to oblige the British Gas Corporation to take responsibility for energy conservation. Once again, their commitment to the fifth fuel proved to be shabby as they totally rejected that possibility. Equally shabby is the Government's commitment to the coal industry. We have supplies of coal to last for hundreds of years; we have the technology to ensure that coal-fired power stations are environmentally acceptable; and we have the technology to turn coal into oil and gas. Despite that, the coal industry is being run down by the Government.
We must have an energy policy based on coal, using the most up-to-date technology. Work on pressurised fluidised bed combustion must be accelerated. There must be a major programme to install desulphurisaton processes in existing coal and oil-fired power stations which, while creating a large number of jobs, would also reduce acid rain emissions dramatically.
It is clear that the Government lack the will to develop new, safe and clean ways of providing Britain with sources of energy. They also lack any coherent approach to Britain's energy needs. We believe that the country's
642
dependence on nuclear power must be reduced, and that our future lies predominantly with the use of coal as its major source of energy and as part of a planned national energy policy.
We would ensure that full reviews were carried out of the Magnox stations and that those that had reached the end of their useful design life were decommissioned and phased out. Nuclear power cannot be halted tomorrow, so we would have a planned reduction in Britain's dependence on nuclear power. Any replacement power station capacity will be provided by constructing new coal-fired power stations, using all the latest technology. The costs involved in this must be met in order to safeguard people's welfare and the environment. We remain totally opposed to the construction of all PWR power stations, at Sizewell or anywhere else in Britain. We will not consider the introduction of the fast reactor.
Following the Chernobyl disaster, which the world has shared, there should be no question but that the Government must pause in any expansion of the nuclear power programme. As a matter of urgency, the Government must ensure that any safety reviews of Magnox stations that have been completed are published, that those still outstanding are accelerated, and that the nuclear installations inspectorate is strengthened. They must halt the production of weapons-grade material, from whatever source.
The Government should accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment for an urgent economic re-appraisal of the THORP at Sellafield, but we recognise that Sellafield will be necessary when decommissioning takes place. The Government maintain that jobs will be lost if they do not go ahead with the PWR. Manufacturing industry disagrees. The Government have the facility to construct a 900 MW coal-fired station, with potential for export demand, which would ensure that jobs were safeguarded.
The Government must end the uncertainty and the speculation about the construction of the PWR. They should call in Sir Frank Layfield and Lord Marshall and tell them that the plans to build a PWR in Britain will not go ahead. That is what the Labour party stands for, and what we advocate tonight.
9.38 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I will want later to compare the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) with the opening speech made by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), because there were considerable differences between the speeches.
In the debate there have been a whole range of differing views on both sides of the House. A number of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies where the storage of nuclear waste is being considered as a possibility understandably made vigorous and lively speeches suggesting various options to the system that is currently proposed.
It is interesting that the hon. Members for Copeland, for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) have constituencies or trade unions that are closely connected with the nuclear industry. With their knowledge and experience, all three were positive in their approach to the nuclear industry—as positive as were the last Labour Government.

643
In fairness to the last Labour Government, although we have been criticised by the Opposition Front Bench for our failure to go ahead with any form of nuclear reactor in the last seven years, which is a perfectly reasonable criticism, we cannot make the same criticism of the last Labour Government. It was that Labour Government who first embarked upon one particular form of reactor that they later decided to abandon. They then gave the order for two further AGR power stations now in the course of construction and moving towards completion. They opened the view that we should consider carefully the possibility of a PWR, and gave the go-ahead for the major investment programme of BNFL. I must confess, therefore, that in their contribution to the nuclear programme of the country the Labour Government of that era—with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) playing a distinguished role in it—were very positive.
One must ask whether the Labour party now uses the argument: as we are self-sufficient in energy, why bother with nuclear energy? Why was it in that period, when we were fast moving towards self-sufficiency in energy, that the Labour Government decided objectively, reasonably and obviously after careful consideration that that was the right course to pursue?
In the debate, therefore, we have seen a recognition of the deep anxiety about the events that have taken place in the Soviet Union. As one future benefit of those events, it now appears likely that the Soviet Union will move to a greater sense of international collaboration on these matters than hitherto. I am not surprised at that. In the talks that I had in Moscow with the new personalities in the Government led by Mr. Gorbachev, those new personalities were very aware that their ambitious plans for the growth of the economy of the Soviet Union much depended upon a massive growth in the energy supplies that the Soviet Union was able to produce.
Unlike the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union has the benefits of massive coal resources and of oil and gas. It is a country that one can argue is self-sufficient in energy without nuclear energy. However, the Soviet Government have objectively decided that, in the massive expansion of energy production that they want between now and the end of the century, the fastest area of production required is in nuclear energy. The Soviet Government have done this for a variety of reasons, including what they consider is the best means of taking energy to the various parts of the Soviet Union and the general efficiency of that method. They were anxious to see the know-how of the West in terms of safety, and the disposal of nuclear waste is a matter on which they wish to collaborate and towards which they wish to work.
I am pleased to say that the Soviet Union has opened its information to the International Atomic Energy Agency after the initial clampdown. The leading figures in the agency have visited the site. They communicated with me today to tell me that the Soviet Union has agreed to give the fullest possible report on the accident and all the lessons to be learnt from it. A conference will be organised by the agency—it hopes that it will take place in June—during which the Soviet Union will present all the facts of which it is aware.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that he has been in favour of the civil use of nuclear energy and considers that international collaboration is an important element, which is the view that was taken at the
644
Tokyo summit. Eastern European countries were critical of the lack of immediate information that was available from the Soviet Union, and I hope that as a result of the incident we can substantially improve international collaboration.
Criticism has been expressed from the Opposition Front Bench about the manner in which information was provided during the potential and actual event of radiation in Britain. Anyone who considers objectively the way in which Ministers concerned with nuclear energy quickly took the monitoring action that was necessary and the publishing of that material will accept that the Government need make no apology for their action. It was right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with his specific responsibilities, led the Government team that was responsible for the monitoring. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has knowledge and knowhow of identifying radiation levels on land and in the sea, and it started its operations as soon as we had knowledge of the accident. The Health and Safety Executive and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate joined in to ensure that all necessary measures were taken.
Unlike other countries, responsibilities for inspection are with a range of Departments, and we should reflect on the wisdom of this approach. It is right that environmental protection should be with the Department of the Environment, which should have responsibility for ensuring that standards are maintained. Land, sea or food pollution is a matter for the Department which has the expertise and independence to deal with the problem administratively. It is right that the Health and Safety Executive, which has considerable independence, should lay down standards for safety factors.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Walker: I shall not give way, because I agreed that the time allocated to the Front Bench replies should be reduced substantially. I think that in fairness the hon. Gentleman should allow me to continue.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland, when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, that as soon as the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), was published, I issued a statement condemning it. That is untrue. I refused to make any comment on the report until the Government had prepared a proper reply.
Mr. Roberts rose
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend and I were involved together in work on environmental matters way back in the 1960s. I have immense respect and regard for his diligence and ability in these matters. He knows that shortly after receiving his report I had discussions with him about it and listened to the constructive case that is set out in the report.
Mr. Roberts rose
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend set out his views on compensation for those who bear the brunt of developments of the sort that we have been discussing this evening. My hon. Friend knows from his past ministerial experience that there are complications and difficulties. When one is dealing with straight compensation matters, one finds that, although something may be unfortunate, in its judgment, for the particular household concerned, it does not have a bearing on the valuation of the property.

645
If one considers the enormous development at Sellafield and the very large work force that is employed there—and likewise at Heathrow—the result has been an increase in property prices. NIREX has stated that it wants objectively to examine the contribution that it can make and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Government will carefully consider any proposals that are made.
My hon. Friend also referred to the importance of adopting Rolls-Royce standards for the treatment of all forms of waste. I understand that point of view. My hon. Friend's report shows that he agrees that Rolls-Royce standards are very much a means of giving confidence to the public.
I had discussions with British Nuclear Fuels plc last week and I understand that it considers that there are ways in which it can improve considerably its performance.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Walker: Can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Give way."] It is important that the international energy scene should be put into context. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the international energy scene. What has been absent from this debate—
Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister refuses to give way. He is misleading the House and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Roberts: It is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Walker: One of the factors that has been left out of this debate is a consideration of the international position.
Mr. Roberts rose—
Mr. Walker: Can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Give way."] That element has been absent from this Debate. Naturally we have considered the immediate effects of the incident in the Soviet Union and its impact upon public opinion. But can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anybody who studies future essential needs knows that of all forms of energy known to man, that which is most likely to be an absolute necessity in the 21st century is nuclear energy, provided that it can be safely produced and safely presented. Can I just say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.") It is estimated that by the year 2025 the world's population will have increased from 4·7 billion to 8 billion. On any estimate of nuclear and other forms of energy requirements, if we look at available fossil fuels it appears that, if we are to keep energy supplies at today's levels, by the year 2025, taking into account all the conservation measures that can be adopted, a ninefold increase in nuclear energy worldwide will be needed.
We have to contrast the two speeches that were made from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Copeland said that it is essential to keep available the nuclear option. However, the right hon. Member for Salford, East said that this is the time to phase out the nuclear industry in this country. The Labour party must make it clear to the country whether or not it wishes to
646
abolish the nuclear industry in this country. If it does. I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, East will call together the shop stewards of the nuclear industry that he brought to my Department a few months ago to complain about the lack of expansion of the nuclear industry. I hope that he will say that now that there has been an incident in the Soviet Union, he has decided to phase out 100,000 jobs in the British nuclear industry. That is the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing, in sharp contrast with those who have a deep knowledge of the nuclear industry, such as the hon. Members for Copeland and for Tottenham.
The hon. Member for Tottenham raised an important aspect about Sizewell, PWRs and fast breeder reactors—it was the quality of engineering. As we all know, his union has made a great contribution to the nuclear industry, and considers that it is an industry of the future. The engineering industry believes that if we follow the suggestion of the Labour party that no decisions are made about the nuclear industry in the foreseeable future, as anyone connected with the industry knows, its existence in this country will disappear.
The Government have correctly decided to take great care before making any decisions on a nuclear reactor. The argument that the Government have been aggressively pro-nuclear is demolished by the manner in which we set up the Sizewell inquiry. It is remarkable that with an inquiry of that quality and duration, the Opposition have decided to ignore its findings even before they are published.
It is important to recognise that, of course, the Government would like the nuclear industry to succeed. We believe that of all the forms of energy known to man, nuclear energy is likely to be the front runner in the next century. However, it can be that only if it proves to be safe and if the engineering standards applied to it are of the highest quality. It is only on that basis that any democratic Government can pursue nuclear energy. This Government, more than any post-war Government, have taken the most enormous care to give every consideration to the quality of decision taking. Therefore, we await the Sizewell inquiry report, which is expected in September. We will study what comes before the International Atomic Energy Agency as a result of what has happened in the Soviet Union. We will then carefully discuss and debate the potentiality of nuclear energy in the years to come.
I believe and hope that we can secure standards of safety and environmental quality that will make that form of energy available to mankind. I hasten to add that if we fail in that task, we must not underestimate the damage that will be done to living standards throughout the world as the fossil sources of energy decline and there is no alternative form of energy. The hon. Member for Workington was correct to recognise that, in reality, it is the developing Third world countries, with the improving living standards of people now devoid of energy, that are dependent upon the success of nuclear energy.
Trying to achieve that success, in standards of environmental quality, total safety and good engineering skills, is the objective of the Government. One of my hon. Friends pleaded that one cannot pursue support for nuclear energy, if, at that time, public opinion is not with one. That is the basis of democracy, and Governments can be defeated if public opinion is not behind them. If any Government failed to put forward the public's basic need for nuclear energy, they would be guilty of a wrongful act towards the future of western civilisation.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 349.

Division No. 175]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Foster, Derek

Alton, David

Foulkes, George

Anderson, Donald

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Freud, Clement

Ashdown, Paddy

Garrett, W. E.

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

George, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Godman, Dr Norman

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Gould, Bryan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gourlay, Harry

Barnett, Guy

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Barron, Kevin

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hancock, Michael

Bell, Stuart

Hardy, Peter

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Harman, Ms Harriet

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

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Bermingham, Gerald

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bidwell, Sydney

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Blair, Anthony

Heffer, Eric S.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Boyes, Roland

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hoyle, Douglas

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

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Bruce, Malcolm

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Caborn, Richard

Janner, Hon Greville

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

John, Brynmor

Campbell, Ian

Johnston, Sir Russell

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Canavan, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Kennedy, Charles

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Clarke, Thomas

Lambie, David

Clay, Robert

Lamond, James

Clelland, David Gordon

Leadbitter, Ted

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Leighton, Ronald

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Cohen, Harry

Litherland, Robert

Coleman, Donald

Livsey, Richard

Conlan, Bernard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Corbett, Robin

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Corbyn, Jeremy

McKelvey, William

Craigen, J. M.

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McNamara, Kevin

Cunningham, Dr John

McTaggart, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Madden, Max

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Marek, Dr John

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

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Deakins, Eric

Martin, Michael

Dewar, Donald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Dixon, Donald

Maxton, John

Dobson, Frank

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dormand, Jack

Meacher, Michael

Douglas, Dick

Meadowcroft, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

Michie, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mikardo, Ian

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Eadie, Alex

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Eastham, Ken

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Ewing, Harry

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Faulds, Andrew

Nellist, David

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Flannery, Martin

O'Neill, Martin

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Forrester, John

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

648

Park, George

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

Parry, Robert

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

Patchett, Terry

Snape, Peter

Pavitt, Laurie

Soley, Clive

Pendry, Tom

Spearing, Nigel

Penhaligon, David

Steel, Rt Hon David

Pike, Peter

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Strang, Gavin

Prescott, John

Straw, Jack

Radice, Giles

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Randall, Stuart

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Raynsford, Nick

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Redmond, Martin

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Tinn, James

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Torney, Tom

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Wallace, James

Robertson, George

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Wareing, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Welsh, Michael

Rooker, J. W.

White, James

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Sedgemore, Brian

Wilson, Gordon

Sheerman, Barry

Winnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Tellers for the Ayes:

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

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Mark Fisher.

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Skinner, Dennis

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Burt, Alistair

Alexander, Richard

Butcher, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Butterfill, John

Amess, David

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Ancram, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arnold, Tom

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

Ashby, David

Carttiss, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Cash, William

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Chope, Christopher

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

Churchill, W. S.

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baldry, Tony

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Batiste, Spencer

Clegg, Sir Walter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cockeram, Eric

Bellingham, Henry

Colvin, Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Conway, Derek

Benyon, William

Coombs, Simon

Best, Keith

Cope, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cormack, Patrick

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Cranborne, Viscount

Blackburn, John

Critchley, Julian

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Crouch, David

Body, Sir Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter

Dicks, Terry

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dorrell, Stephen

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

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dover, Den

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dunn, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Durant, Tony

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

Brinton, Tim

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Eggar, Tim

Brooke, Hon Peter

Evennett, David

Browne, John

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Bruinvels, Peter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bryan, Sir Paul

Farr, Sir John

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Favell, Anthony

Buck, Sir Antony

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Budgen, Nick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bulmer, Esmond

Fletcher, Alexander

649

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Forman, Nigel

Lee, John (Pendle)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forth, Eric

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lester, Jim

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Freeman, Roger

Lightbown, David

Fry, Peter

Lilley, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Galley, Roy

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lord, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCrindle, Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Goodlad, Alastair

Macfarlane, Neil

Gow, Ian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Grant, Sir Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Greenway, Harry

Maclean, David John

Gregory, Conal

McLoughlin, Patrick

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

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

Grist, Ian

McQuarrie, Albert

Ground, Patrick

Madel, David

Grylls, Michael

Major, John

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Malins, Humfrey

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Malone, Gerald

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maples, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Marland, Paul

Hannam, John

Marlow, Antony

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Harris, David

Mates, Michael

Harvey, Robert

Maude, Hon Francis

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Mellor, David

Hawksley, Warren

Merchant, Piers

Hayes, J.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hayward, Robert

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Miscampbell, Norman

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Heddle, John

Moate, Roger

Henderson, Barry

Monro, Sir Hector

Hickmet, Richard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hill, James

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Hind, Kenneth

Morrison, Hon P, (Chester)

Hirst, Michael

Moynihan, Hon C.

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Mudd, David

Holt, Richard

Neale, Gerrard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Needham, Richard

Howard, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

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

Neubert, Michael

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Newton, Tony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nicholls, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Norris, Steven

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hunter, Andrew

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Osborn, Sir John

Irving, Charles

Ottaway, Richard

Jackson, Robert

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Geoffrey

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pawsey, James

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Key, Robert

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Pollock, Alexander

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Porter, Barry

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Portillo, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Knox, David

Powley, John

Lang, Ian

Price, Sir David

Latham, Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

Lawler, Geoffrey

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lawrence, Ivan

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

650

Raffan, Keith

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Terlezki, Stefan

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Renton, Tim

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Thornton, Malcolm

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'eath)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tracey, Richard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Trippier, David

Rost, Peter

Trotter, Neville

Rowe, Andrew

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Ryder, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Viggers, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Waddington, David

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Walden, George

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Walters, Dennis

Shersby, Michael

Ward, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Watson, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Watts, John

Speed, Keith

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Speller, Tony

Wheeler, John

Spencer, Derek

Whitfield, John

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Whitney, Raymond

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wiggin, Jerry

Squire, Robin

Wilkinson, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

Wolfson, Mark

Stern, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Woodcock, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Yeo, Tim

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stokes, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 205.

Division No. 176]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Blackburn, John

Amess, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ancram, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arnold, Tom

Bottomley, Peter

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bright, Graham

Baldry, Tony

Brinton, Tim

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Batiste, Spencer

Brooke, Hon Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Browne, John

Bellingham, Henry

Bruinvels, Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Benyon, William

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Best, Keith

Buck, Sir Antony

Bevan, David Gilroy

Budgen, Nick

651

Bulmer, Esmond

Harvey, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Butcher, John

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Butterfill, John

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Hayes, J.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

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

Hayward, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Cash, William

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Heddle, John

Chapman, Sydney

Henderson, Barry

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Churchill, W. S.

Hill, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hirst, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Holt, Richard

Cockeram, Eric

Hordern, Sir Peter

Colvin, Michael

Howard, Michael

Conway, Derek

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

Coombs, Simon

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Cope, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Couchman, James

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cranborne, Viscount

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Critchley, Julian

Hunter, Andrew

Crouch, David

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Irving, Charles

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert

Dicks, Terry

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton. Lord J.

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Dover, Den

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Dunn, Robert

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Durant, Tony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Evennett, David

Knowles, Michael

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Knox, David

Farr, Sir John

Lang, Ian

Favell, Anthony

Latham, Michael

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lawler, Geoffrey

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Fletcher, Alexander

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lee, John (Pendle)

Forman, Nigel

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lester, Jim

Forth, Eric

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lightbown, David

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lilley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Fry, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Gale, Roger

Lord, Michael

Galley, Roy

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lyell, Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McCrindle, Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Glyn, Dr Alan

Macfarlane, Neil

Goodhart, Sir Philip

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Goodlad, Alastair

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gow, Ian

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gower, Sir Raymond

McLoughlin, Patrick

Grant, Sir Anthony

Maclean, David John

Greenway, Harry

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Gregory, Conal

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

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

McQuarrie, Albert

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Madel, David

Grist, Ian

Major, John

Ground, Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Grylls, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Maples, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marland, Paul

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marlow, Antony

Hanley, Jeremy

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hannam, John

Mates, Michael

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Maude, Hon Francis

Harris, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

652

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mellor, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Merchant, Piers

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Speed, Keith

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Speller, Tony

Miscampbell, Norman

Spencer, Derek

Moate, Roger

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Monro, Sir Hector

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Squire, Robin

Moore, Rt Hon John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Steen, Anthony

Moynihan, Hon C.

Stern, Michael

Mudd, David

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Neale, Gerrard

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Needham, Richard

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Nelson, Anthony

Stokes, John

Neubert, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Newton, Tony

Sumberg, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Norris, Steven

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Onslow, Cranley

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Oppenheim, Phillip

Temple-Morris, Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Terlezki, Stefan

Osborn, Sir John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Ottaway, Richard

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Thornton, Malcolm

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Pawsey, James

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tracey, Richard

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Trippier, David

Pollock, Alexander

Trotter, Neville

Porter, Barry

Twinn, Dr Ian

Portillo, Michael

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Powell, William (Corby)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Powley, John

Viggers, Peter

Price, Sir David

Waddington, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Proctor, K. Harvey

Waldegrave, Hon William

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walden, George

Raffan, Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Rathbone, Tim

Waller, Gary

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Walters, Dennis

Renton, Tim

Ward, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Watson, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Watts, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Wheeler, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Whitfield, John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Whitney, Raymond

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wiggin, Jerry

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wilkinson, John

Rost, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Rowe, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wolfson, Mark

Ryder, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Woodcock, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Yeo, Tim

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tellers for the Ayes

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bagier, Gordon A, T.

Alton, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Guy

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barron, Kevin

Ashdown, Paddy

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bell, Stuart

Ashton, Joe

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

653

Bermingham, Gerald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bidwell, Sydney

Flannery, Martin

Blair, Anthony

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Forrester, John

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Derek

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foulkes, George

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Freud, Clement

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Garrett, W. E.

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

George, Bruce

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

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Godman, Dr Norman

Bruce, Malcolm

Gould, Bryan

Buchan, Norman

Gourlay, Harry

Caborn, Richard

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hancock, Michael

Campbell, Ian

Hardy, Peter

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Harman, Ms Harriet

Canavan, Dennis

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Heffer, Eric S.

Clarke, Thomas

Hickmet, Richard

Clay, Robert

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clelland, David Gordon

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Home Robertson, John

Cohen, Harry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Coleman, Donald

Hoyle, Douglas

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Craigen, J. M.

Janner, Hon Greville

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Cunningham, Dr John

John, Brynmor

Dalyell, Tam

Johnston, Sir Russell

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Deakins, Eric

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Dixon, Donald

Lambie, David

Dobson, Frank

Lamond, James

Dormand, Jack

Leadbitter, Ted

Douglas, Dick

Leighton, Ronald

Dubs, Alfred

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Litherland, Robert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Livsey, Richard

Eadie, Alex

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Eastham, Ken

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ellis, Raymond

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Ewing, Harry

McKelvey, William

Faulds, Andrew

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

654

McNamara, Kevin

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

McTaggart, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Madden, Max

Sedgemore, Brian

Marek, Dr John

Sheerman, Barry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Martin, Michael

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maxton, John

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Maynard, Miss Joan

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

Meacher, Michael

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Meadowcroft, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Michie, William

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

Mikardo, Ian

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

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Snape, Peter

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Soley, Clive

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Nellist, David

Strang, Gavin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Straw, Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Park, George

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Parry, Robert

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Patchett, Terry

Tinn, James

Pavitt, Laurie

Torney, Tom

Pendry, Tom

Wallace, James

Penhaligon, David

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter

Wareing, Robert

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Welsh, Michael

Prescott, John

White, James

Randall, Stuart

Wigley, Dafydd

Raynsford, Nick

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Redmond, Martin

Wilson, Gordon

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Winnick, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Robertson, George

Tellers for the Noes:

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Mark Fisher.

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the steps taken by the Government to keep the House and the public informed of the consequences for the United Kingdom of the accident at the nuclear plant at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: endorses the Government's commitment to the safety of the complete nuclear fuel cycle in the United Kingdom: and in that context approves the Government's first stage response on 2nd May to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste (House of Commons Paper No. 191), setting out as it does the principles against which current proposals to dispose of low-level radioactive waste can be considered.

Hong Kong
10.29 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
The draft nationality order carries out arrangements which have been fully considered and debated over many months and it represents the culmination of a long period of careful work. It stems from the joint declaration with the Chinese Government, which, with the wholehearted approval of the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed in December 1984. It continued with the Hong Kong Act 1985, which again the House fully debated and approved. It led from there to our debate in January, when there was a full opportunity to consider the detailed arrangements which are now incorporated in the draft order. Equally full and detailed discussions have been held in Hong Kong.
It is right that the matter should have been dealt with in this careful way, because fair and comprehensive nationality arrangements are vital to the future of people in Hong Kong and to the successful carrying out of the agreement with the Chinese.
I shall not describe in detail the provisions of the order, because they are in the form that the House considered in January, apart from one or two drafting and minor technical amendments. It establishes those who, because of their connection with Hong Kong, will cease to be British dependent territories citizens in 1997, and it gives them the right to acquire British national (overseas) status—BN(O)—and the passport that goes with it. The order makes provisions also to guard against statelessness.
Our proposals in the order are fully consistent with our obligations under the joint declaration and properly exercise our powers under the Hong Kong Act. I think that this has been generally accepted in earlier debates in the House, as it has been in Hong Kong. Following their debate last December, however, the Hong Kong Legislative and Executive Councils made three points which have attracted support in the House and in another place. They were, first, that there should be an endorsement in British national (overseas) passports to show that the holder did not require a visa or entry certificate to visit the United Kingdom; secondly, that former service men in Hong Kong who fought in its interests during the second world war should be granted British citizenship; and, thirdly, that British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong who were not ethnically Chinese, and who had not exercised their right to be British nationals (overseas), and who had no other form of nationality, should be granted British citizenship in 1997 rather than British overseas citizenship.
The Government agreed to consider each of those points fully. We have done so with great care over many months, listening to the many representations made. As a result, as the House will know from my announcement on 23 April, we have met two of the three requests.
First, for the British national overseas passport, we will place in each an endorsement which will read:
"In accordance with the United Kingdom immigration rules the holder of this passport does not require an entry certificate or visa to visit the United Kingdom."
656
An explanatory leaflet will be given to each passport holder, which will make it clear that we welcome visitors from Hong Kong and which will set out the holder's position under the present immigration rules. I am glad that this concession has been welcomed by the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils.
Secondly, we have also agreed to meet the concern for ex-service men. There are about 270, and of those, 60 or so are eligible to apply for registration as British citizens under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. I am ready to consider sympathetically any applications from these ex-service men. To meet the needs of the others, I have agreed also that any of the 270 may he accepted here for settlement, together with their dependants. The Unofficial Members of the Legislative and Executive Councils have also welcomed these arrangements.
We considered long and hard the third request—that British citizenship should be granted to British dependent territories citizens who were not ethnically Chinese and who might risk statelessness after 1997. We accept fully our commitments to this community, and we intend to honour them in full, but we must also consider the implications of going as far as they have asked. We believe that such a step is not necessary to provide them with the proper measure of security they need, and that it would carry considerable implications in the years ahead which we could not responsibly ignore.
We have approached the problem with two firm principles in mind. The first is that no British dependent territories citizen should have any reason to fear becoming stateless in 1997; nor after 1997 should their children, or their grandchildren. The provision of British overseas citizenship for any who would otherwise be stateless because they have not taken up their right to be a British national (overseas), and the assurances of British overseas citizenship for the children and grandchildren of British dependent territories citizens, fully meet these commitments.
Our second principle is that we should ensure that people settled in Hong Kong can continue to have the right to live there. No form of British nationality can guarantee this after 1997. It has been secured, however, through the agreement with the Chinese. That guarantees rights of abode in Hong Kong for all non-ethnic Chinese who have made it their permanent home. The agreement is binding in international law and, to make it binding in local law, the provisions are to be written into a basic law governing the Hong Kong special administrative region.
Our proposals fully meet our commitments to provide all British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong with the right to a home, with a clear form of nationality and with assurances for their children and grandchildren.
To go further and grant British citizenship in the way suggested, would take the problem out of the immediate context of Hong Kong and risk setting up pressures and uncertainties which could only have damaging and undesirable consequences elsewhere. We must remember that there are about two million British overseas citizens in various parts of the world, of whom about 800,000 have that as their only form of citizenship, We must think of the message which they might receive, and the doubts and uncertainties which would be raised, if we were to accept that British overseas citizenship was not adequate for some people in Hong Kong.

657
We must also take into account the sensible principle of the British Nationality Act, which the House approved in 1981, that British citizenship should reflect a person's close personal links with the United Kingdom. And, as British citizenship carries with it the right to come and settle in this country, we must think of our commitment to a fair and firm immigration policy. There are at present about 11,500 people in Hong Kong who in 1997 might seek to benefit under the statelessness provisions, and we do not know what might have affected the size of the commitment by then.
There are those who argue that, given the circumstances of Hong Kong, it would be prudent to grant these people British citizenship in case circumstances there were to change and they had to leave. If this were to be the case there would no doubt need to be a good deal of reconsideration and readjustment, but it is not sensible to go into the next 11 years planning for the worst, and we have no reason to do so.
I understand the concerns of this community, and that is why we have made it clear that if any British nationals were at any time to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically their admission to the United Kingdom on a cases by case basis. Mr. John Swaine, the convenor of the Legislative Council's ad hoc group on the order, has been quoted as welcoming this as a strong moral commitment to this community. I am sure that he was right to do so.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the essence of the Minister's comments that he has rejected the third category of argument, even though it applies to a relatively small number of people, because of the relevance of the other, up to 2 million, elsewhere in the world?
Mr. Hurd: That is part of the argument. Of the 2 million, 800,000 have no other form of citizenship. If we were to take action which would devalue British overseas citizenship, it would have serious effects on them. That was one of the arguments. I have gone on to deploy another connected with immigration. I have gone beyond the point on which the hon. Gentleman was fastening to explain the case by case approach which any Government would have to adopt if the need arose. I was quoting the welcome for this undertaking which has been given by Mr. Swaine in Hong Kong.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Notwithstanding any commitment that might be made for the future, will the Minister recognise that the result of Government policy will be to give 10,000 people in Hong Kong a right of abode in Hong Kong without citizenship, or citizenship in the United Kingdom without right of abode? If the very least of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents came to see him at his surgery to complain about it, would he not do all in his power to fight 'against such a monstrous injustice? Why, therefore, is he condemning no fewer than 10,000 citizens in Hong Kong to such inadequacy in the future?
Mr. Hurd: I would fight against any injustice, but I would try to establish the facts in my own mind before doing so. Through the connection between the agreement
658
with China and the contents of the order, we are providing a right of abode and British overseas citizenship to those who do not take out the BN(O) passport. For the reasons that I have given, if the hon. Gentleman had been listening, I believe that that provides the best assurance for a secure and confident future for the people of Hong Kong, including the 11,500 about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned. He does neither them nor Hong Kong any service by misinterpreting a matter which has been so carefully and strongly discussed and debated in the colony, where there is a growing understanding that the arrangement we have made is sensible.
There are already signs of continuing encouragement about the future of Hong Kong. The Joint Liaison Group continues to work well. It has made arrangements to ensure that after 1997 Hong Kong keeps its place in the world trading community, and it has also formally agreed the terms of the right of abode endorsement which I have just mentioned in the BN(O) passport.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: In writing to the Hong Kong Indian Association on 30 April, the Home Secretary said that the Government would have further discussions with the Government of China. Are the discussions which have already taken place the limit of such discussions, or does he expect to have further discussions?
Mr. Hurd: The discussions which have already taken place have led to the position which I am putting to the House. Nothing that I am saying now will contradict or come as a surprise to the Chinese Government. I have reported to the House on the link between the agreement and the discussions with the People's Republic of China and the order before the House.
Many of us have from our own experiences deep admiration and respect for Hong Kong. The Government have made a significant contribution to establishing and building up that confidence by carefully measured steps, not all easy to arrive at, but many of which have been considered and approved by the House. The nationality order represents another important step along the way. The arrangements that we have made for the ethnic minorities, as for all other British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong, fully honour our commitments. They offer a sound and responsible basis for continued confidence and security in the future.
I believe that the order, as part of the series of measured steps. will serve the people of Hong Kong well. I commend it to the House.
10.44 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: This is the second occasion in recent months on which the House has debated the citizenship of Hong Kong consequent upon the transfer of that territory to China in 1997. May I repeat what many hon. Members and I said during our debate in January—that nothing that we say tonight should undermine our confidence in the future of Hong Kong after 1997. when it becomes part of China. Confidence is a delicate matter, and we owe it to the people of Hong Kong to encourage a state of confidence and optimism about the future. Those are not merely words: having visited Hong Kong last year. I believe that there are good chances of a successful and prosperous future for the people of Hong Kong after 1997.
We are debating the citizenship and status of those who are not ethnic Chinese and, therefore, not automatically

659
Chinese citizens and will not automatically have the ability to become Chinese citizens after 1997. It must be said that, after 1997, Hong Kong will be unique. I can think of no territory in the history of the British empire—or at the end of the British empire—that has been transferred to another country as Hong Kong will be transferred in about 11 years' time. That is why this is an especially difficult problem of citizenship which would not apply if Hong Kong became a completely independent territory, as so many parts of the British Commonwealth have become in the past 30 years.
As the Home Secretary said, in recent months, the Government have been pressed on three issues. He mentioned the endorsement in the passport. Of course, that is welcome for what it is worth, but we must be honest with ourselves and with the people of Hong Kong and say that that endorsement is simply a reiteration of the present position. It adds not one jot to the rights of the people of Hong Kong; it simply puts into their passports rights that they should have anyway. The people of Hong Kong have told us about their difficulties when they arrive at British airports as tourists or on business. The hassles to which they are subjected have given rise to the feeling that their passports should contain something to protect them.
There may be a change of heart at Heathrow airport, and the endorsement may give them protection, but the Home Secretary knows that the Hong Kong Government advise their citizens visiting Britain to obtain entry clearance certificates first to save themselves difficulties at the point of entry. I hope that the endorsement will have the effect that the Home Secretary claims, but let us be honest and admit to ourselves that it simply reiterates the present position.
The concession granted to former prisoners of war is welcome. We argued their case in the previous debate, and we are glad that the Government have acceded to our requests.
The ethnic minorities are unhappy about the Government's proposals, the more so as the Government revealed those proposals in answer to a parliamentary question a couple of weeks ago. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Council of Hong Kong Indian Organisations has lobbied hard and effectively to express its anxiety about the position of its members after 1997. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Legislative Council in Hong Kong made strong and clear recommendations.
There have been other representations. I received a telegram from Sir Roger Lobo, an eminent man of Portuguese origin in Hong Kong, from which I quote:
"The British Government's failure to consider minorities' case was bitterly disappointing to those non-ethnic Chinese Hong Kong citizens and this includes people of European ancestry who have lived here for generations. They feel betrayed."
He mentions the position of Portuguese people there and comments on Britain and Portugal celebrating the 600th anniversary of the treaty of Windsor, which was signed on 9 May 1386. He feels that the Government proposals leave most of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong with an uncertain future there. That is a powerful telegram. I am sure that the Home Secretary has received the same message sent directly to him at the Home Office.
We are talking about the nature of British responsibility for these people in Hong Kong. The Home Secretary has said that they will have a right of abode there as decided by the agreement with the Government of China. But, of
660
course, giving them British overseas citizenship status in Hong Kong, albeit with the right of abode which is the subject of an international agreement. does not give those people in Hong Kong from the ethnic minorities equal and full citizenship with other people in Hong Kong. The Home Secretary knows, as we know, that British overseas citizenship is not citizenship in any true sense of the word. It is a term devised in the British Nationality Act 1981 to get us out of one of the embarrassing legacies of empire. It has now been applied with a difference to the situation in Hong Kong, the difference being that it will be able to be passed on for a couple of generations. The Home Secretary said that he had no wish to devalue British overseas citizenship. For the life of me, I cannot understand how something that has so little value can be devalued any further.
If I may turn to a particular point of substance and one to which the Home Secretary referred, in reply to a written question and, indeed, again today, the Home Secretary said:
"If, however, any British national were in the future to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically the case for admission to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 148.]
It is not being suggested that there would be obvious pressure for these people to leave Hong Kong. Surely the problem is rather this. Because they will not be full and equal citizens after 1997 with the majority of the people of Hong Kong, their position will be difficult. It may well become untenable while they are in Hong Kong.
If the Home Secretary used his words carefully, as we must assume that he did, he was giving only a very slight concession to people under pressure to leave, not people who find that, because of their unequal citizenship status, they are having an unhappy and miserable time in Hong Kong. I hope. like everybody, that it will not come to that. However, if it does, those people surely are entitled to greater safeguards.
Because there are fears to that effect, the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong have been arguing that they should be given some sort of assurance before 1997, not after that date. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has received a copy of the editorial of the South China Morning Post of Monday 12 May. Referring to the ethnic minorities of Hong Hong, it says:
"As has been repeatedly stated, there is little interest in leaving at present. The minorities are on the whole contented with life in Hong Kong, regard this as their home, are mostly well entrenched in business or the civil service or are long-term employees with their roots here. Their only desire is to have the right at some future date to emigrate if conditions in Hong Kong make it impossible to stay. That, coupled with the right to enter as visitors to the UK without visas, would be an acceptable compromise for the majority, if the British Government is unwilling or unable to take all."
That is only the view of one newspaper, albeit the leading English language newspaper in Hong Kong, but it suggests that at the least the Government could have gone a bit further.
Dr. John Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend in the case that he has made about the unsatisfactory nature of the order. In view of the fact that the Government are now a lame duck Government fast approaching the end of their term of office,—only a couple of Conservative Members are making gesticulations, and other Conservative Members are being very quiet about this—

661
will my hon. Friend in the next Labour Government reconsider the order in the light of the changing circumstances and the situation at that time?
Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely what I was about to say. It is right that I should state what the next Labour Government's policy will be—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but the policies of the next Labour Government will be with us pretty soon. I am sure that Conservative Members are aware of that. The Opposition have a commitment to repeal the Immigration Act and the Nationality Act and to replace those measures with non-discriminatory legislation. This will involve inevitably a wide-ranging review of immigration and nationality policy. As part of that review, we shall take into account the requests and claims of various groups, including those of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. We shall take those into account as the basis of a just and non-discriminatory immigration and nationality policy.
The critical date for the people of Hong Kong is 1 July 1997, and there will be a Labour Government in Britain many years before then. We shall be starting—
Mr. Hal Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dubs: I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to tresspass on their time.
We shall be starting the process of reviewing immigration and nationality policy in about two years' time, when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches.
It would not have taken much for the Government this evening to show a little awareness of the real concerns of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I do not think that the Home Secretary showed any real concern. He said that he had thought about the matter and had decided that the answer would be no. Some of the assurances that he tried to give the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong sounded singularly unconvincing. Indeed, it sounded as if the right hon. Gentleman was not convinced of what he was saying.
The ethnic minorities have the right to say that the Government have turned a deaf ear to their plea, and that is not good enough. For that reason, we shall be voting against the order.
10.58 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: My family connection with Hong Kong goes back 75 years, and in the previous Parliament, for a couple of years, I was the Minister concerned with Hong Kong at the time when the negotiations which led to the successful agreement that was initialed in 1984 were in their early stages. I take a great interest, therefore, in the success of Hong Kong and in the welfare and preservation of the way of life of all its people of whatever race. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the decision that he has taken and on the terms of the order.
I pressed my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the endorsing of passports and on the matter of prisoners of war when we debated the draft order dealing with these issues, and I want especially to express my gratitude for the steps that have been taken on those two points. They
662
have not been easy matters. I know that the drafting of the wording to go into the passport was not easy but, I believe that the Government have come to the right solution.
Another matter which caused anxiety some time ago was whether the BNO passport would be acceptable at all to various countries. We no longer hear about that. I quote it as an example of something which caused considerable concern in Hong Kong but which has now been shown to have had no substance. Those who live in the intense, active and intelligent society of Hong Kong sometimes get themselves into a state of unnecessary anxiety.
The most difficult question relates to the ethnic minorities. The Council of Hongkong Indian Associations will, I know, be very disappointed by the decision. As has already been mentioned, it has lobbied effectively. I want to make four points about this matter.
First, it is not correct to allege, as the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations has alleged, that the Government have broken their promises. It is perfectly clear from what was said in the previous debate that no promises have been broken. I speak with some feeling, because after the debate a few months ago on the draft order I was accused of having broken a promise. That statement was entirely without foundation. I believe it does not help the case of the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations if it makes reckless accusations of that kind.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the numbers involved. The Council of Hongkong Indian Associations referred to 10,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department referred to 11,500. But is this the full picture? There must be people who do not hold BDTC passports but who are entitled to apply for BDTC passports. Moreover, will not the children of the 11,500 be entitled to BDTC passports before 1997? They will swell the number to well over 11,500. It is unrealistic to refer to 11,500 or 10,000. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate will say something about that question. Thirdly, I welcome the language used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his answer to a parliamentary question on 23 April. In particular I welcome his statement that
"we have concluded that the granting of British citizenship is not justified in the present circumstances."—[Official Report, 23 April, 1986; Vol. 96, c. 147.]
I emphasise the words "in the present circumstances."
That answer appears to me to keep the door a bit open. I welcome also the words that have already been quoted about the possibility that British nationals might come under pressure to leave Hong Kong. They show that the Government's mind is not closed. It is right to remind the people of Hong Kong that there are still 11 years to go before 1997. If circumstances change drastically during that time—I do not believe that they will—this matter can be looked at again. I want to emphasise to my friends in Hong Kong that the language used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his parliamentary answer is, in the British parliamentary context, very important and significant. They are not empty promises. They will be regarded as very important, if ever they should become relevant.
Fourthly, we should try to be clear about why the minorities in Hong Kong are worried. They are not' worried about the agreement. They think it is a good agreement—as, I believe, everybody does. It guarantees to the people of Hong Kong all the freedom that they could possibly wish. It gives to them the right of abode. If we

663
ask ourselves whether or not this agreement is being well implemented, the answer is that it is being implemented step by step with the Government of China. Agreement has been reached in the Land Commission about land. Agreement has also been reached about Hong Kong's position in the Asian Development bank. A very important agreement was reached recently that Hong Kong will be an independent member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That agreement was reached between China, the United Kingdom and GATT. It is more important than some of the other matters that have been causing concern in recent weeks to the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Robert Parry: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fears of the Asian community in Hong Kong. He had long experience as Minister of State with responsibility for Hong Kong. What does he consider to be the true position of Peking if the British Government give British citizenship to these people? Does he really believe that after 1 July 1997 China will give Chinese citizenship to them?
Sir Peter Blaker: Peking has made it clear that it regards that question as a matter for the British Government, which is exactly what I expected it to say. The hon. Gentleman's latter question has already been answered—it is open to Hong Kong people to apply for citizenship of the People's Republic of China, and that sort of position applies in many countries throughout the world.
I was dealing with the question of what was causing anxiety to the Indian community in Hong Kong. Why does it want us to take action now, on the assumption that the agreement will not work? I believe that the Indians are worried not that they are likely to be expelled from Hong Kong after 1997 but that they may be discriminated against. We must recognise that relations between China and India, and between the Chinese and the Indians, have not always been free from friction. However, I believe that after 1997 there will be a rather special position in Hong Kong. There will be not a free enterprise territory run by Communists, but a free enterprise territory run by the people of Hong Kong. That is the whole point of the agreement. I think that the people of Hong Kong will recognise the mutual inter-dependence of all elements of Hong Kong society.
The Indians are inclined to say, and I am sure that they are right, that they control 20 per cent. of Hong Kong's foreign trade. Will the Chinese people of Hong Kong, after 1997, want to destroy or render less effective a community that is so important in the running of Hong Kong's economy? Surely it is clear to us now that China has understood the importance of confidence in a free enterprise economy and also, at least in part, the way in which a free enterprise economy works.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to explain away the concern of some of the Indian community. Will he not, in the way in which he usually attacks these matters, be absolutely frank and admit that, regardless of the present contribution of the Indian community to the welfare of Hong Kong, there is a past history that worries many Indians? They were the upholders of law and order under the British Government. In terms of the Pathan riot squad and acting frequently as
664
prison warders and night watchmen, they were the maintainers of law and order. They will not necessarily be popular in the future social order of Hong Kong.
Sir Peter Blaker: I do not accept that premise. If Hong Kong is to run itself—which I believe will be the case, and which is the whole basis of the agreement on which everyone has been congratulating both Britain and China—the hon. Gentleman's point is not valid.
I want to cite an example that shows that Chinese and Indians can co-operate. I am surprised that it has not yet been cited. It is the example of Singapore. I believe that the Foreign Minister of Singapore is an Indian—Mr. Dhanabalan; he certainly was when I was a Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, which is predominately Chinese, is or recently was an Indian. There are other Indian Ministers and also prominent Indians in every walk of life. There is co-operation and equal rights between Chinese and Indians in Singapore, though it is a Chinese-dominated society in terms of numbers. I do not see why the Indians should be so pessimistic about the possibility of Hong Kong operating on a similar basis.
I say again what I said in the previous debate—that I believe that the agreement will be observed because it is in the interests of China as well as the people of Hong Kong that it should be observed. However, I take comfort from the fact that if things do go wrong, the Government—as I understand it—have kept the door ajar.
11.9 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has already been noted that the House had an earlier and more lengthy opportunity of considering substantially this order on 16 January. However, on 16 January it so happened, for reasons which are not directly connected with the future of Hong Kong, that I was not a Member of the House. Therefore, I take the opportunity as briefly as possible afforded by tonight's debate of placing on record my anxieties about the future consequences of the changes which the order will make in the nationality law of the United Kingdom.
Those changes are two. The first is that we are extending British nationality at present to 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese. It is British nationality because we repeatedly call it British nationality; and, because they are to be designated British nationals, their passports are to be issued in the name of Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State, and are to be renewed or issued as necessary by the consular posts of the United Kingdom. In every natural respect those who obtain that status will be regarded as British nationals.
The world knows what it thinks a British national is. It thinks a British national is a person who has the same rights in relation to the United Kingdom as a national of any other country normally has in relation to that other country, notably the right of entry and abode. That right does not inhere in that status. Therefore, the question arises, what is to be the future, in the event of there being a strong desire on the part of the holders of that status not to remain in Hong Kong, and if they were to look to the United Kingdom, of which we are making them nationals, as the natural place of abode or of residence?
It is not necessary in order to consider that prospect seriously to cast any doubt on the bona fides or to deny any of the hopes attached to the People's Republic of China,

665
although our memories do not have to be long to survey a different scene in that People's Republic of China. It is simply necessary that our people have understood that the calling in of the implication of the conferment of our nationality on 3·25 million Chinese is not something which rests in the power of discretion of the United Kingdom. It depends on the behaviour of others and on circumstances over which, by definition, we shall have no control.
If those circumstances were so to develop that the implications of British nationality were to be sought, we should come under intolerable pressure in the world at large and within the United Kingdom community to acknowledge the reality of nationality, and that that reality cannot be devoid of a right of entry and of abode. Therefore, I believe that we are creating a potential commitment in what we are doing which we have no right to create and which I do not believe is fully understood by those outside.
It is not absolutely clear why we have thought it necessary to do so, or why we have had the concurrence—no more was needed—of the Chinese Government in doing so. It is not clear why a people so sensitive and proud as the Chinese should have been so ready to concur in our nationality being conferred on 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese. It is not absolutely clear why, since a travel document and a passport of Hong Kong is to be available for ethnic Chinese after 1997, the availability of that document as a travel document should be regarded as so singularly important. I fear that it is regarded as an insurance that can be claimed in due course upon the strength of the implications of what we are doing in extending in this way our nationality.
That is the largest of the two changes that we are making, and potentially the most dangerous. The second has already been referred to quite extensively, and I shall therefore refer to it only briefly. It is that those who would otherwise be stateless are, by virtue of this order, to be able to obtain the status of British overseas citizenship. It is not clear, if they are stateless without it, what state they have with it.
Much has been said about the passports that will be available to the British nationals (overseas), but little has been said about the passports of the British overseas citizens, although I presume that they, too, if they are issued at all, will be issued in the name of Her Britanic Majesty's Secretary of State. There again, we are proporting to give a status to which there does not attach the most valuable quality and characteristics that national status and the possession of a nationality gives throughout the world. In doing this, we are incurring the danger of misunderstanding, and of being accused of double dealing in offering something and, upon it being claimed, its reality being found to be virtually non-existent.
We are in this position, as those of us who lived through the debates on the British Nationality Act 1981 are aware, as a result of the transformation of our nationality from one that rested upon allegience, before 1948, to one that now has a quite different basis, and which we have endeavoured, in line with other countries, to equate with connection with this United Kingdom, of which it is the nationality and the citizenship. We have been left with loose ends, and I fear that the manner in which this matter proceeds in regard to British nationality has left two loose
666
ends—one large and pregnant with major danger, and the other, although minor in its scope, still pregnant with understanding and disgrace.
11.17 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I feel that I must criticise the Government because we should have had this debate yesterday, and it should have gone on for a much longer period than the time allotted to it tonight. Whoever in the Government is responsible for this change should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for compressing this debate into one and a half hours, which is not being fair to hon. Members.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the promise that was made by my noble Friend Baroness Young on 19 February 1985, when she promised that the order would be withdrawn and revised to take account of the views expressed. In the debates that took place in this House and in the other place, many expressed grave doubts. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what has gone on in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, which overwhelmingly asked for safeguards for the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. They are not ethnically Chinese, and are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. Their only national status is that of British nationals overseas, and as far as I am aware that gives them no right to live anywhere, and cannot be passed on to their children.
I am speaking particularly on behalf of the 6,000 people who make up the Indian community, because most of them come from families which settled in Hong Kong many years ago and regard Hong Kong as their natural home. In 1947 they opted to stay in Hong Kong rather than accept Indian citizenship, and one of the problems about that is that India does not offer dual citizenship.
These people opted for Hong Kong because they believed in Hong Kong, and that is where they want to stay for ever. The community has always supported Britain, and has always been on our side. There is great anger in Hong Kong about the Government's behaviour.
This week I received a letter from a lady which stated:
"We are spending four months in Hong Kong where my husband is visiting Royal Society professor at the university here. (Our home is in Hale. Altrincham.)"
She is lucky—she has a very good Member of Parliament. Her letter continued:
"Having talked with many people here in Hong Kong, Chinese and expatriate alike, we have been saddened by reports of the Government's attitude towards the ethnic minorities, particularly the Indians, and very aware of the deep concern here for these people."
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems to believe certain things. First, he seems to believe that minorities will have the right to live in Hong Kong as a matter of law. In fact, I have been told that the right to live in Hong Kong will be subject to the powers of another nation—in this case, China, of which these people are not nationals.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend seems to feel that if we accede to the claims of that small number of people the position of other British overseas citizens will be affected. I remind my right hon. Friend that in the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands we have done something for the people who live there.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend argues that to accede to the requests of these people would wrongly imply doubt about the commitment of the Sino-British joint declaration. The fact is that the Chinese Government

667
believe that providing the Indian minority with an effective form of nationality is a matter for this Government and not for the Chinese Government.
Fourthly, my right hon. Friend seems to say blithely that if, in 1997, there is pressure for these people to leave Hong Kong, the Government of the day in Britain will consider sympathetically whether to admit them to the United Kingdom on a case-by-case basis. I am afraid that that has not assured the Hong Kong people or the Legislative Council. I believe that some of my right hon. Friend's statements are erroneous. People in Hong Kong to whom I have talked do not share my right hon. Friend's equanimity on this issue. They think that it is less than satisfactory to be given a vague non-binding assurance rather than a legal entitlement, which would at least put their minds at rest. They do not want to be the boat people of 1997. They want effective citizenship which guarantees them the right of abode somewhere.
Of course, numbers are important, and I have always agreed with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) on this point. Over the years we have made a total mess of immigration. It is not a matter of the total population of Hong Kong wanting to descend on this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) pointed out the difficulties if large numbers of people want to settle here. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will give some thought to this also—that we have a cut-off date, for example, in 1990, by which time all non-Chinese BDTCs should be required to register. and those non-Chinese BDTCs who have no other nationality available should qualify for full British citizenship. The time to do that is now, not in 1997. A three-year cut-off period would at least give the authorities time to examine each application.
I believe that there is something called justice and that the people who have given great loyalty to Britain over the years are entitled to some consideration. They do not want to descend on this country. They want to stay in Hong Kong, because it is there that they have their families, homes and businesses. All I ask is that they should have some security and not be left as stateless persons. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can give some assurance. If he cannot give any assurance, I am afraid that I shall not vote in the Lobby with my hon. Friends.
11.23 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The Government have wisely yielded on the two issues on which they should never have demurred for such a long series of debates. A sinner's repentance—to a Presbyterian, that is particularly attractive—is always a plus and a bonus. The Government have many pluses and bonuses to earn in the hereafter.
We are pleased that the argument for the passport endorsement making it clear that Hong Kong British people do not need visas to visit Britain has at long last been accepted. It is only right also that ex-service men who have done their duty by this country will be granted full British citizenship or the right to settle in Britain. The protracted arguments in debate after debate which have been required to achieve these minor corrections should never have been necessary. That sad fact shows how mean minded the Government of the present Prime Minister are.
668
Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that there are many other examples of that meanness of spirit in many fields of policy. One of them, in this very matter of retreat from empire, is the continued refusal of the Government to accept their responsibilities—our responsibilities, British responsibilities—for the 11,000 or so British nationals in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese and who, unlike those of Chinese origin, are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. Their status as British nationals overseas gives them no right to live anywhere and cannot be passed on to their children.
Government spokesmen have trotted out in this long series of debates all the old arguments of evasion and, excuse and supposed explanation. Let me briefly try to counter some of their obfuscation. These 11,000 or so British nationals overseas—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: British overseas citizens.
Mr. Faulds: No, they will now be called British nationals (overseas) if the order is passed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will catch up with that in time.
Those British nationals (overseas) are not planning en bloc to decamp from Hong Kong. Their lives are committed to that series of island territories. They simply seek the security of a proper citizenship, not a paper one. They do not want to have to leave their homes in Hang Kong. They just want that security of citizenship.
The agreement guaranteed right of abode to everyone who already has it but excluded non-Chinese from Chinese nationality. It is Her Majesty's Government's responsibility to put right their statelessness. It is not China's responsibility as those people are not nationals and China has no ultimate responsibility for them. The Government know that very well. Although I have been a long time friend of the People's Republic, I am convinced that if we abdicate our post-imperial responsibility, future Chinese Governments will behave with proper consideration. China does not abandon or abrogate its international commitment.
There were earlier arguments put forward by Her Majesty's Government that the Chinese majority in Hong Kong would resent special treatment for the minorities. That devious pretence was put paid to by the Legislative Council's generosity in stating its understanding of the vulnerability of people without a secure nationality. Indeed, it has endorsed the need for special treatment.
Finally, there was the argument that the People's Republic of China would consider special treatment as showing that the United Kingdom and Hong Kong Governments lacked faith in the agreement. The Chinese Government is much too sensible and much too sophisticated to credit such nonsense. Indeed, the pro Peking press in Hong Kong supported the proposed changes. One newspaper, which takes the official line, called in question the right of abode in Hong Kong, proffered by Her Majesty's Government, as having anything to do with citizenship as such.
All those who know Hong Kong best, from businessmen to parliamentarians—and there are many of them in the House—from journalists to ex-governors of the place, have urged the Government to be generous in this last exercise of our colonial exit. It can be only the lack of vision and the mean spirit of the present Prime Minister that prevents a proper resolution of this last issue.
The Foreign Secretary is a warm-hearted and generous individual, and so, indeed, is the Home Secretary,

669
although he simulated some conviction in his speech a little earlier this evening. Ministers in both this House and the other place have made commitments in debate after debate that they would revise their views to take account of what was said in the various debates. Here, I must disagree with my old right hon. Friend who seemed to argue the contrary. I think that Blackpool is his place of abode normally. Ministers had need to do so because this matter has been pushed through on an Order in Council instead of through primary legislation, which the House could debate, and the point is then amend. If, indeed, both Houses had had that opportunity, they would have made an amendment on this particular issue.
I can best sum up the case that I think most of us in the House want to make tonight in the excellent coda to a document that some of us have received from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. It states:
"The minorities in Hong Kong have won all the arguments, convinced the doubting and undermined all objections."—
I do not think that any of us in the House would disagree with that—
"The government's response is unworthy of the calibre of the debate and the breadth of concern in both Houses of Parliament. We would urge members of both Houses to restate their opposition to the unamended order and to insist that the government keeps its promise and acts in the spirit of the debates in Britain and in Hong Kong."
I think most of us in the House tonight would strongly endorse that argument.
11.31 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I shall detain the House for but a very few minutes.
I should like to add my welcome to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to concede two of the three issues that exercised the minds of many hon. Members on both sides of the House during our debate on 16 January. However, I must also register my disappointment that my right hon. Friend has not felt able to concede British citizenship and the consequent right of abode here in Britain to the non-Chinese ethnic minority British dependent territories citizens. While, clearly, that was the most difficult of the three issues, I am as yet not persuaded that my right hon. Friend has come to the right conclusion.
I have read many thousands of words—I am sure that everyone has—on the subject since our debate in January, and they have become fairly repetitive. Since then it has become clear that because, under Chinese law, only ethnic Chinese BDTCs can become Chinese citizens, the non-ethnic minorities would become stateless in 1997. The British national (overseas) status for the former BDTCs and the grant of the nebulous British overseas citizenship to their children and grandchildren born after 1997 merely postpones statelessness to the fourth generation, unless the Chinese decide to amend their law. That is something that they seem singularly unwilling to do. As has been said by several people, the people in Peking seem to prefer to leave that question entirely to the British Government as they see it as our problem, not theirs.
It is also clear that the Chinese ethnic majority in Hong Kong is not seeking to use the non-ethnic minority as a
670
Trojan horse to reopen the whole question of the status for Chinese BDTCs after 1997. Hence it cannot be claimed that there would be a knock-on effect in Hong Kong.
What about the possibility of a concession to the non-Chinese in Hong Kong being cited as a precedent at some future date should we give up any of our few remaining colonies thereafter? There seems to be no likelihood of any other colony being ceded to another sovereign power of such different political and philosophical status and attitude as the People's Republic. In the case of the Falklands and Gibraltar—two territories that could conceivably be ceded to another sovereign power rather than granted independence in their own right—very specific promises have been given that the will of the people of those two territories will be paramount—and in any case, we have already conceded precisely that right of abode to the Falkland islanders and Gibraltarians that the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong seek. I could quote Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands as a precedent for the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong. I believe that the remaining British colonies—and I went through that very short list this evening—which consists of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, British Indian Ocean Territories, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena and Tristan Da Cunha and finally the Turks and Caicos Islands are unlikely to produce a situation similar to that in Hong Kong.
I am one of those who believe that this country has given a home to as many people from overseas as it can possibly absorb. None the less, I believe that in the case for the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong, we are bound by the responsibilities of our colonial past to ensure that we do not bequeath a group of stateless children of British overseas citizens to the Government of 80 years from now. That would be a cop-out.
I will support the Government tonight, with some reservations. I will do so in the knowledge that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, there is still plenty of time for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary' to do what would be right by the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong.
11.35 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did not conclude his remarks by saying that he would follow the logic of his arguments and vote against the order. I agree with much of what he said, and his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) put the case as succinctly as did any hon. Member in the debate. I was pleased that he concluded by saying that he would not support the order. That was the logical conclusion of the case that he advocated in his speech.
I was fortunate enough to be in Hong Kong over the Easter recess, and I discussed these matters at some length with the various groups involved, with representatives of the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations and with Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils. The House should not underestimate the strength of feeling that still exists in Hong Kong on this issue.
The Government's decision on the endorsement on the passport is greatly welcomed in Hong Kong. It had been asked for vigorously by the people in Hong Kong for some time. One point that was made earlier in the debate is that

671
there has been an irritating need for people to obtain and pay for entry certificates if they are not to have difficulties when they arrive at Heathrow or some other port of entry. I should like the Minister to assure the House that that will not be necessary with the new endorsement in the passport. There has also been a welcome in Hong Kong, as there has been throughout the House, for the Government's decision on the ex-service men.
There is still a unity of condemnation in Hong Kong of the Government's action over the non-ethnic Chinese, and also of their unwillingness to listen to the united voice of the people in Hong Kong and the strong voices of hon. Members here and in another place.
The Government and this country have a moral responsibility towards that relatively small group of people. During recent years the number of Vietnamese refugees that we have taken in from Hong Kong is roughly the same as the number of the non-ethnic Chinese community in Hong Kong about whom we are concerned. That puts the numbers that we are talking about into context.
I do not accept, and do not think that many hon. Members would accept, that because we advocate that the Government should accept the representations on this issue, we must say that the other people whom the Home Secretary mentioned should also have a right to come to this country. That does not follow, and we all believe that, because of the unique nature of the situation, a ring fence could and should be put around these 11,500 people and they should be allowed to come to this country. That does not reflect upon the unique and excellent agreement with the Chinese Government, because the Chinese have made it clear that they regard that as a British responsibility and that the British Government should accept their responsibility and act upon it.
These people do not want their right to live in Hong Kong to be subject to the powers of China, a country of which they are not nationals. Their statelessness and lack of an abode in the world, if they need it, is the basis of their claim to the House for British citizenship.
I believe that we could find a solution to the problem. Indeed, they themselves have suggested that there should be a cut-off date, which would ensure that a ring fence was put around the problem, that numbers were clearly identified and that a continuing commitment was not being accepted. They have suggested that approach and we should be prepared to accept it.
On that basis, we on these Benches believe that this injustice should be rectified. We would wish to rectify it, if the opportunity arose, before 1997. With that in mind we will vote against the order tonight, in the hope that at some stage it will be rectified.
11.41 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: I should have thought that in this frustrating game of politics most of us have found that however worthy our objective, and however we persevere in pursuing it, we seldom achieve 100 per cent. success.
In approaching the order, the Legislative Council set their sights on three changes, of which their Members made sure that we were aware, and more than aware. Their effective campaigning has achieved two of their objectives; but the third only in part. I hope that they will not view that as a failure, but as a positive success, if not a 100 per cent. success.
672
The endorsement of the passports will be provided in full. It only remains for the Government to persuade other countries to respect it. British citizenship for those who served in the defence of Hong Kong is, quite rightly, granted.
The Home Secretary has explained the reasons for the Government's attitude to the claims of the third objective, that of the British dependent territories citizens who are not ethnically Chinese. Of course, our Indian friends will be very disappointed.
I ask them not to underrate, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has done, the assurance in the Home Secretary's reply which reads:
"If, however, any British national were in the future to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically the case for admission to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 148.]
The hon. Member for Battersea said that those words were inadequate, although he gave little in the way of an alternative. I took down his words. He talked about life being unpleasant or intolerable.
That is not an adequate substitute for those words in the statement. I consider the assurance that has been given to be exceptional. It is a serious step for a Government to commit their successors in this way. The assurance should not be scorned.
The changes should be seen as part of the broad and positive progress that is being made in Hong Kong on several important fronts. The machinery set up under the joint agreement is being seen to work. The all-important basic law drafting and consultative committees are regarded now by the people of Hong Kong with some confidence as a serious attempt by the Chinese to equate the law to the joint declaration. The original doubts as to the role of the joint liaison committee are beginning to fade, as its practical value is emerging. It has cleared the way for the endorsement of the passport, for entry into GATT with immediate and independent negotiating status and for membership of the Asian Development bank. The Land Commission, another body set up under the agreement, has shown itself to be flexible in dealing with the tricky problems involving revenue from land sales. These important changes are taking place against the background of Hong Kong's continuing prosperity and social development. Hong Kong will be building a third university by 1994, a unified stock exchange has been established and a housing authority—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the subject matter of the order, which is British nationality.
Sir Paul Bryan: Great progress continues to be made in all the spheres to which I have referred. Such progress is vital for the future of Hong Kong. The additional progress that the order represents is part of the advance that we want to see, and provided the British Government and Hong Kong's friends in this House and in the other place continue to show our genuine commitment to its wellbeing, confidence there can be maintained in the difficult years to 1997.
11.4 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: The essence of this debate is the Government's unreasonable

673
and unjustified attitude to Hong Kong's non-Chinese ethnic minority. Their refusal to grant them right of abode in Britain is an abdication of a clear moral responsibility.
I appreciate that some hon. Members even some Ministers, feel that if Britain took the appropriate action, it would upset the Chinese and be interpreted as an expression of no confidence in the Sino British agreement. While I am a warm supporter of that agreement and would not do anything to damage it, there is no substance in the view that providing British citizenship for the non-Chinese ethnic minority would offend China. It has been made abundantly clear in recent months by, in particular, Mr. Xu Jia Tun, head of the Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong, that the Chinese would have no objection to British citizenship being given to the non-Chinese ethnic minority.
In a recent letter to me, the Prime Minister said that no BDTCs in Hong Kong need fear statelessness, and the Home Secretary implied that in his remarks tonight. But that was a thoroughly misleading statement for the Prime Minister to have made. We understand the rights and privileges of citizenship. The new status conferred on BDTCs denies them the right of abode in Britain and denies them legitimate citizenship.
Statelessness is not avoided by handing out bits of paper. If it were, confetti would be invaluable. As we know, confetti merely showers good will. The members of the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong do not just want good will. Nor do they want the sympathetic consideration offered them by the Home Secretary. They want rights. The Government are proferring a bogus kind of citizenship, one that is devoid of the basic right of abode. It is a counterfeit status which, like any forged banknote, seeks to convey credibility but which will not bear close inspection.
The Government should recognise that they are creating bitterness and disillusionment in Hong Kong. They should be aware that their refusal may force the ethnic minority to leave Hong Kong and to seek citizenship elsewhere. Those people are crucial to the success of this unique proposal for Hong Kong's future. Their departure would seriously damage Hong Kong. The Government should not allow their nightmare fears, nor those of some right hon. Gentlemen, to supersede justice.
The Government have rightly acknowledged that the joint declaration, creating "one country, two systems", was a unique and imaginative concept. To help the non-Chinese ethnic minority who are the unwitting victims of this remarkable and warmly welcomed development, the Government should show a generous and imaginative response. It is only by granting citizenship to this minority that the Government can rise to the occasion and also act with fairness and justice. I hope that the Government will think again.
11.50 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The order is important for the Indian community in Hong Kong but equally for the politics of Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) was right to draw attention to the wider considerations which unfortunately—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong.
Dr. Bray: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is part of the problem. The people and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong attach particular importance to this House because it helps to build up their standing vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China in the difficult transition that they have to make.
Hong Kong made three requests. It is good that two of them should have been conceded by the Government. Some progress has been made. I agree that weight should be attached to the assurances given by the Home Secretary, but Hong Kong will make sure that the argument continues and is considered again by a future Government. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not be too discouraging.
11.52 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The debate has concentrated on the third request made by the Hong Kong Legislative and Executive Councils, but the House will not forget the extent to which the Government have responded to the views expressed in the House when we last discussed these matters and the extent to which we have taken account of the views then expressed, as promised. It cannot be suggested that that debate was a waste of time and that the Government responded with deaf ears.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) was a little unfair in his comments about the procedure adopted. After all, we went to great lengths to follow a procedure which allowed the House to debate at length a draft Order in Council so that the Government could hear the views of the House and go away and consider them. We have met the wishes of Hong Kong on the passport endorsement. We recognise how important it is to the people of Hong Kong to know that genuine visitors will always be welcome here. In regard to other countries, the clear indication in the passport that the holder has the right of abode in Hong Kong, guaranteeing returnability to Hong Kong, should mean that the passport is every bit as acceptable as the present BDTC passport.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) for his comments. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was rather churlish and showed no comprehension of the difficulty involved in finding an exactly appropriate form of words to put on the passport to reflect the rights which all of us wish to see stated clearly in it.
We have also met entirely the wishes of Hong Kong on service men. I am glad that UMELCO has welcomed what we are doing as "a fitting recognition" of the service given by these people.
The arguments about those British dependent territories citizens who are not ethnically Chinese have been stated often, but I should stress a few points. We cannot accept, as suggested by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that a form of British nationality that does not carry with it a right of abode in Britain is not a genuine form of nationality. British overseas citizens are not stateless. They travel round the world on British passports. They are entitled to British consular protection. To accept that they are stateless is to accept that we have a continuing obligation to accept no fewer than 2 million BOCs living throughout the world.

675
I invite the House to remember that, while saying how valueless the citizenship was, the hon. Member for Battersea made a commitment that was so woolly as to be almost meaningless. All that he said was that if, unfortunately, a Labour Government returned to office, they would scrap the British Nationality Act 1981 and the Immigration Act 1971, and they would take account of the requests made by all sorts of people. What sort of an undertaking is that? What sort of a sign is it of the hon. Gentleman's true reaction to the order? What sign does it give us of the official Opposition's attitude to the order? It gives us no sign at all, and the hon. Gentleman might as well not have stood at the Dispatch Box. We are no wiser than we were before the debate as to where the Opposition stand on this matter.
The arguments of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) are always interesting. He said that we were extending British nationality to 3·25 million people. He did not mention that we are giving a different form of British nationality to 3·25 million people who already have British nationality, which is different from the impression which he may, unwittingly, have given during his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale said that the non-ethnic Chinese wish to continue living in Hong Kong. We cannot give them the right to do so by conferring upon them British citizenship, but we have won them the right to do so by the agreement. That agreement is binding in international law, and it will be written into a basic law governing the Hong Kong special administrative region. British citizenship cannot be transmitted further than to the second generation born abroad, so British citizenship could not give to the non-ethnic Chinese a nationality that could be transmitted to their descendants any further than the British overseas citizenship which, under the order, can be transmitted to their children and grandchildren born after 1997.
That is an answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). We could no more guarantee British citizenship to the children and grandchildren of those people beyond the second generation born abroad by granting them British citizenship than we could by granting them British overseas citizenship.
We must remember our commitment as a Government to a firm immigration policy, but I repeat that if any non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs were at any time to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically their admission to the United Kingdom on a case-by-case basis. That has been described as a "strong moral commitment". I agree with that description.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 119.

Division No. 177]

[12 midnight

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Amess, David

Baldry, Tony

Ancram, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Arnold, Tom

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ashby, David

Bellingham, Henry

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bendall, Vivian

676

Benyon, William

Gow, Ian

Best, Keith

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bevan, David Gilroy

Greenway, Harry

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gregory, Conal

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Blackburn, John

Ground, Patrick

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hampson, Dr Keith

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

Hanley, Jeremy

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hannam, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Harris, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Harvey, Robert

Bright, Graham

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Brinton, Tim

Hawksley, Warren

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Hayes, J.

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hayward, Robert

Browne, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bruinvels, Peter

Henderson, Barry

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hickmet, Richard

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hind, Kenneth

Buck, Sir Antony

Hirst, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bulmer, Esmond

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Burt, Alistair

Holt, Richard

Butcher, John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

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

Butterfill, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

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

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cash, William

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hunter, Andrew

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Chapman, Sydney

Jackson, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Churchill, W. S.

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Clegg, Sir Walter

Key, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Colvin, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Conway, Derek

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Coombs, Simon

Knowles, Michael

Cope, John

Knox, David

Couchman, James

Lamont, Norman

Cranborne, Viscount

Lang, Ian

Crouch, David

Latham, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lawler, Geoffrey

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Dicks, Terry

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dorrell, Stephen

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J,

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dover, Den

Lester, Jim

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Durant, Tony

Lightbown, David

Dykes, Hugh

Lilley, Peter

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Eggar, Tim

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lyell, Nicholas

Favell, Anthony

McLaughlin Patrick

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

McCrindle, Robert

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Forman, Nigel

Macfarlane, Neil

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

MacGregor, Rt Hon Johr

Forth, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Madel, David

Freeman, Roger

Major, John

Fry, Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Gale, Roger

Malone, Gerald

Galley, Roy

Maples, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marland, Paul

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mates, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maude, Hon Francis

Goodlad, Alastair

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

677

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mellor, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Merchant, Piers

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Speed, Keith

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Speller, Tony

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Spencer, Derek

Miscampbell, Norman

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Moate, Roger

Stanbrook, Ivor

Monro, Sir Hector

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Moore, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Stern, Michael

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mudd, David

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Neale, Gerrard

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Nelson, Anthony

Stokes, John

Neubert, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Newton, Tony

Sumberg, David

Norris, Steven

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Onslow, Cranley

Temple-Morris, Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Terlezki, Stefan

Osborn, Sir John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thumham, Peter

Pattie, Geoffrey

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pawsey, James

Tracey, Richard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trippier, David

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pollock, Alexander

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Porter, Barry

Viggers, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Waddington, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Powley, John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walden, George

Raffan, Keith

Waller, Gary

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Walters, Dennis

Rathbone, Tim

Ward, John

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Renton, Tim

Watson, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Watts, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wheeler, John

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Whitfield, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Whitney, Raymond

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wiggin, Jerry

Rowe, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Ryder, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Wolfson, Mark

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wood, Timothy

Sayeed, Jonathan

Woodcock, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Yeo, Tim

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Ayes

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. Carol Mather, and Mr. Robert Boscawen

Shersby, Michael

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Ashdown, Paddy

Anderson, Donald

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Atkinson, N, (Tottenham)

678

Barron, Kevin

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bell, Stuart

Johnston, Sir Russell

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Bermingham, Gerald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Blair, Anthony

Lamond, James

Boyes, Roland

Lead bitter, Ted

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Litherland, Robert

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Bruce, Malcolm

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Caborn, Richard

Madden, Max

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Marek, Dr John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Canavan, Dennis

Martin, Michael

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Maxton, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Michie, William

Clarke, Thomas

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Clay, Robert

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Clelland, David Gordon

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Nellist, David

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Conlan, Bernard

Park, George

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Parry, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Patchett, Terry

Corbett, Robin

Pendry, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Pike, Peter

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

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

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Deakins, Eric

Prescott, John

Dewar, Donald

Raynsford, Nick

Dormand, Jack

Redmond, Martin

Dubs, Alfred

Robertson, George

Eadie, Alex

Rogers, Allan

Eastham, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Ellis, Raymond

Sheerman, Barry

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Ewing, Harry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Faulds, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

Soley, Clive

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Forrester, John

Steel, Rt Hon David

Foster, Derek

Strang, Gavin

Foulkes, George

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

George, Bruce

Wallace, James

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Godman, Dr Norman

Wareing, Robert

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Welsh, Michael

Hardy, Peter

Winnick, David

Haynes, Frank

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hoyle, Douglas

Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

Heathrow-Gatwick Helicopter Link
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neuhert.]
12.11 am
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am very grateful for this opportunity to debate the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter airlink. It is an issue of profound importance to my constituents.
The licence was originally granted to British Caledonian Airways Ltd. and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. for one year only in 1978. A new application was granted in 1979 for four years. In 1983, British Caledonian and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. jointly applied to continue the service for a further 10 years. The Civil Aviation Authority granted the application on 1 February 1984, but, on 10 June 1984, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport directed the CAA to vary the licence so that it would terminate four months after the M25 motorway between Reigate and Wisley was opened.
On 21 November 1985, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a direction to the CAA that, if the licence did not expire first, it should be revoked from 7 February 1986. British Caledonian applied for deletion of this note in the licence requiring it to cease operations.
The four conditions of this licence, which have remained unchanged since it was originally granted in 1978, are onerous. None of them is normally found in CAA licences for air transport operations, but they were considered necessary by the CAA in view of the particular nature of the operation.
In November and December 1985 the CAA held a hearing that lasted for 16 working days to deal with the application. In reaching its decision, the CAA took into account many factors and heard many witnesses who fully represented the views of the operators and the objectors. In its decision, handed down on 4 February 1986, it considered at great length the legal framework, the economic arguments, costs, revenue implications, airline competition and airports policy, the users, the choice between Airlink and Speedlink, the M25 motorway, the environment and the disturbance caused to it, present and proposed routes and the minimisation of disturbance. It acted as the responsible, expert body that it undoubtedly is.
Having considered all the arguments for and against the continuation of this important service, the CAA concluded that Airlink should continue with effect from such date as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State notified it. The CAA accordingly gave notice to the Secretary of State of its decision, and the Secretary of State indicated that he would need some time to consider the matter. However, before he had stated his position, in accordance with the earlier directive on the licence, the service ceased on 7 February this year.
The Secretary of State then invited representations from involved parties to the CAA's decision. The operator's own representation stressed the low number of relevant written objections and of non-Airlink incidents, the general misconceptions about the matter, the possibility that the joint local authorities' objections had not been based on proper advice and the exaggerated effects of Airlink on the environment.
British Caledonian pointed out that it had offered new routes and altitudes to reduce environmental impact on
680
particular areas at its own instigation and not as a CAA requirement. following earlier discussions between some of the objectors and Airlink staff. British Caledonian welcomed the M25 but questioned its ability to provide a suitable route both now and in the future—a question subsequently entirely justified by experience.
Further, the CAA in its earlier decision had agreed that travel by road remained an imperfect substitute for many Airlink passengers. British Caledonian pointed out that Speedlink could not possibly match the Airlink service, was not a suitable alternative and could never achieve the competitiveness needed by the London airports system.
Since its inception in 1978, the Airlink service has become a vital element in the London airports system. It has earned £10·5 million directly and £100 million in interline revenue for the London airports. Airlink has created 62 jobs and carried 600,000 passengers. I estimate that nearly half the existing passengers will in future avoid London if Airlink ceases—a potential loss of revenue to British Caledonian of £5 million to £6 million, and of about £14 million to United Kingdom airlines overall.
The management of British Caledonian—I am inclined to agree—believes that Airlink is being used as a scapegoat for environmental objections. The Government have paid scant regard to environmental objections to the Channel tunnel, with wide compulsory purchase powers being granted for land purchase. My right hon. Friend has suddenly adopted what appears to me to be a pious attitude to a service to which the environmental objections are questionable, and which produces much income for the United Kingdom in terms of tourist traffic and the utilisation of the London airports.
Motorway access is already proving unsatisfactory, especially at peak times in the morning and afternoon, which already coincide with airline peak times. The M25 is already heavily congested and Surrey police have now observed that, when a blockage occurs on the M25 in peak times, it creates a one-mile tailback in four minutes.
Traffic levels are now three or four years in advance of predicted levels, and in a year or two they will increase to a wholly unacceptable and extreme level. A blockage is now normal every day during morning and afternoon rush hours, yet the Minister is suggesting that Airlink should wait a year or two to see what the traffic position will be. The United Kingdom tourist industry cannot and will not thrive on such extraordinary complacency. If the Minister is so convinced that the motorway is adequate, he should see for himself the congestion at peak hours. He would then realise the deep anger and frustration felt by anyone with an urgent connection to catch at Gatwick or Heathrow.
I come now to the disparities between Gatwick arid Heathrow in the number of destinations operated. The frequency of services from Gatwick is inferior to Heathrow. Gatwick has 115 destinations, Heathrow 223—almost twice the number. The connecting helicopter service greatly reduces the impact of that imbalance.
The Government's twin White Papers on airline competition and airports policy set out a future in which Government support for the commercial development of aviation business would be strong, would develop and would build up competition. They envisaged a twin airports system and effective competition with foreign airlines. How is the Airlink decision helpful to British aviation in the light of those White Papers? Airlink was described in the BAA's 1978 report and accounts as:
"the symbol of London's twin airports policy."

681
Surely, in Industry Year of all years, the Government should not have a policy of frustrating transport links.
This decision will end the productive and useful employment of a number of people. I should warn the House that, in my judgment, many more jobs are less secure because of what will prove to be a serious loss of revenue to British Caledonian.
The Minister's decision ignores the efforts made to meet objections in terms of changes of routeing and flights at higher altitudes. The environmental disturbance relating to that single source has been grossly overstated. Airlink represents only 20 per cent. of total helicopter movements in the west London area.
The French have an Airlink service between the Paris airports, despite the peripherique motorway. The cities of Tokyo and New York have helicopter linking services. Indeed, a British helicopter links Wall street with the New York airports. Houston has just introduced a city link helicopter service, for which landing fees have been waived for a specific period. Concorde aircraft do not meet any of the current noise requirements, yet they are permitted to operate charter flights from London Heathrow.
Surely it is discrimination of the worst possible kind when the S61 aircraft, which meets all the current and proposed noise emission standards for helicopters, is denied permission to operate. Where is the equity in that? Before the CAA, there were paraded a large number of professional witnesses who gave objective evidence on noise. Why, if the environmental issue was such a prime requirement, was that expert evidence ignored? Why has the Minister substituted his own beliefs for the expert evidence of others? The Secretary of State knows that a surface connection can never match the Airlink, and that the significant benefits of an airside connection will be lost.
The Speedlink coach service between 8 February and 3 May this year operated at about a 15 per cent. load factor. It carried, on average, six passengers per journey, at a time when there was no competition from Airlink, which stopped on 7 February. Before it stopped, Airlink, in competition with Speedlink, was operating at 50 per cent. load factors. The figures speak for themselves. How long will the Speedlink service continue at those passenger levels? Will my hon. Friend the Minister take steps to ensure that it continues?
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully why British Caledonian needs this operation. He must ask himself why a private carrier would have fought so hard for so long—since 1978—and would have attracted so much adverse publicity at such considerable cost to itself in terms of time, effort and money, to operate the Airlink, unless it seriously and conscientiously believed in the route and its value and profitability—an objective endorsed by many respected users and organisations, including the Air Transport Users Committee.
British Caledonian has a record of successful operations. It has consistently made a profit. It creates jobs and provides a valuable boost to the United Kingdom economy. Is it right that, when it has suffered several times recently because of events over which it has no control, the Government now reward its endeavours by restricting
682
it yet further? I greatly hope that my hon. Friend will, in equity and in accordance with Government aviation policy, permit the service to resume at once.
Sir Peter Hordern rose—
Mr. Robert McCrindle rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I assume that the two hon. Gentlemen seeking to participate have the consent of both the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and the Minister.
12.23 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on choosing this subject, and on the forceful way in which he has put his case.
I feel sorry for British Caledonian that it has been treated so harshly. It could have expected and should have received much better treatment from the Government. It needed the helicopter link to continue its operations, and the Government should have allowed it much more time to experiment with different height levels to see whether the environmental objections could be overcome.
I am surprised at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, considering his decision about the Channel tunnel. We were told that it did not matter if a service was to be provided across the Channel, and was to be built by private enterprise. Environmental issues were swept to one side. He was in favour of an improvement in services for passengers who wished to cross the Channel. But this helicopter link will no longer be available to those who like to use Gatwick or Heathrow airports, and must change flights rapidly. That is sad.
In announcing this change in a written answer, my right hon. Friend said that he was minded to make the change because of the improved motorways and the improved coach services, which would be able to ply so rapidly between Heathrow and Gatwick. The London Standard said this evening that the Surrey police have said that traffic using the motorway between Heathrow and Gatwick can at times tail back 10 miles from the M25-M3 interchange, while a 14-mile tail back in the M3 traffic waiting to join the M25 has been recorded. Anyone who has experienced delay on the M25 can but wonder at the decision by my right hon. Friend.
As for using the motor coaches, and the new rapid means of transport that the M25 will allow, that can be described only as a figment of the imagination. This is sad decision, but I noticed that my right hon. Friend said that he would allow time for experiment, and if it were found that the transport difficulties in getting from Heathrow to Gatwick were great, he would consider allowing the helicopter link to return. I hope that his decision will be reversed soon.
12.26 am
Mr. Robert McCrindle: As a consultant to British Caledonian, I know that the airline considers the helilink to be a vital element in developing services at Gatwick in competition with British Airways. The House will recall that that is basis of the Government's aviation policy, as outlined in a White Paper 18 months

683
ago. The decision that we are debating places a major impediment on British Caledonian in achieving the Government's objective.
All other cities with two or three airports are linked by helicopter, including Paris, New York and Tokyo. That shows that in other countries, although the same environmental consideration must surely apply, there is a considerable understanding of the need, when advancing aviation, to have such a helicopter link.
Whether or not we like it, the first class and business class passengers, which all airlines must attract if they are to maximise their revenue, simply will not use a coach service. The fact that they have to check in and out of customs and immigration if they are travelling from one airport to the other by road, which is not necessary with the helicopter link, undoubtedly reduces the ability of British Caledonian to continue to provide a competitive service.
Another small matter that may have been overlooked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reaching his decision is that in airline timetables throughout the world it is possible to include the time for a link run by a helicopter but not to include a coach service link.
The impression has been given that, as a result of the decision, the people immediately below the flight path of the British Caledonian helilink will be free from noise. However, it is estimated that no more than 20 per cent. of the total noise created by helicopters is created by this one. Even after the decision, some 80 per cent. of the noise will continue to be experienced. It is a pity that so much of the noise appears to be blamed on the British Caledonian helilink when private helicopters will continue to create a noise.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well disposed to British Caledonian, and that he has frequently expressed considerable admiration for the way in which it has triumphed through many difficulties, and is now in a relatively profitable condition. I appeal to him. We need more than words—we need action. That action could, with great advantage, be an announcement by him to reconsider this decision, which flies in the face of all that British Caledonian has sought to do in recent years.
12.29 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has been as eloquent and vigorous in support of his constituents' interest as he always is. In this case, he has emphasised the employment opportunities offered by British Caledonian. On that and other matters, my hon. Friend has been ably supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern).
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said about the importance and excellence of British Caledonian. My hon. Friends have argued strongly for the retention of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick airports. I have to say what I am sure they already know—that many other hon. Members have argued no less passionately in the House and outside that the helicopter link should cease. The future of the helicopter link has become a highly controversial issue, the resolution of which was bound to invoke the anger of one side or the other.
The number of representations clearly illustrates the strength of feeling on both side about the issue. After
684
publishing the application, the Civil Aviation Authority received 2,225 objections, of which 949 were within the deadline allowed by the regulations. At the hearing, the authority heard British Caledonian and the Air Transport Users Committee in support of the application, as well as 25 parties representing objectors. In addition, we have received about 1,000 representations, including many hon. Members, local authorities, airlines, airports, residents' associations, other local bodies and members of the public. We have received two petitions—one in support of the helicopter link and one opposed to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met two deputations of hon. Members—again, one in support of the link and one opposed to it.
There has therefore been no shortage of information on which to base a decision. Naturally, we considered very carefully the Civil Aviation Authority's decision to grant British Caledonian's application, as well as the evidence submitted to the Authority, the transcript of the public hearing, and the representations made to us.
The decision which my right hon. Friend now has to take is whether to specify a date for the resumption of the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link, or whether instead to direct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue a licence for the service in order to prevent the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter. In reaching this decision, my right hon. Friend has to weigh the environmental disturbance against the economic benefits of allowing the helicopter link to continue, and this must include an evaluation of the alternatives available to passengers who wish to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.
I shall deal first with the question of environmental disturbance to which the Civil Aviation Authority cannot give the same weight as the Secretary of State for Transport. Without doubt, there is widespread and intense opposition to the helicopter link on the grounds of the environmental disturbance that it causes. This opposition has been increased by two aspects of the present application. First, the proposal to operate the helicopter link over three routes has increased the number of people who will be affected by the environmental disturbance. Secondly, the firm expectation following from a previous decision that the helicopter link would cease four months after the opening of the M25; has produced dismay and anger among those who thought that the issue could not be re-opened. We are conscious that some of the claims about the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter have been exaggerated—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—but. even after making full allowance for this consideration, it remains the case that the helicopter link has caused, and would continue to cause, widespread and genuine annoyance and distress.
I now turn to the economic benefits of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. We accept that British Caledonian, as well as other British airlines and the airports, earn valuable revenue from passengers interlinking over the London airport system. If such passengers are to continue to be attracted to the London airports system, there must be fast, frequent, comfortable and reliable links between Heathrow and Gatwick. Good links between the two airports will expand the choice of services available to travellers with their origins or destinations in the United Kingdom by enabling them to regard services from Heathrow and Gatwick as alternatives.

685
There is no doubt that, in the past, the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick has proved a valuable facility for passengers wishing to travel between the two airports. But the value of the helicopter link has been reduced now that the M25 has opened up motorway travel between the airports. If I have time I shall address myself to the effectiveness of that motorway link.
The speedlink coach service, operated by London Country, provides a frequent service with a high standard of comfort on board the coach as well as dedicated lounges at the airport terminals. London Country also operates the cheaper, but still direct, Jetlink 747 service. Alternatively, passengers can make use of the taxis and self-drive hire cars. Some may now find it more attractive to use their own cars.
These services and facilities offer travellers between the two airports a good choice of speed, comfort, convenience and price. We accept that continuing the helicopter link would expand this choice still further. In particular, we recognise the convenience to interlining passengers of an airside to airside helicopter service. But we believe that the wide range of alternatives to the helicopter should prove acceptable to the majority of travellers between the airports, and we hope that certain improvements to them will enhance their attractiveness to interlining passengers.
It may be that a few interlining passengers will be discouraged from using the London airports system because of their own perceptions of road transport or because a few connections which were possible by helicopter will not be possible by road, or because with the helilink they are able to change airports without going through customs or immigration.
We have looked very carefully at the various estimates of how many interlining passengers might be lost to British Caledonian and other British airlines, and what that could amount to in terms of loss of revenue and profit.
While we would not wish to understate the possible loss, we believe that some of the claims that have been made have been exaggerated, and we hope that the potential loss could be kept to the minimum by all those concerned taking a positive and aggressive approach to promoting the alternative road connections.
Weighing those arguments against each other has not been easy. Having, however, considered all the arguments, the evidence and the representations with the greatest care, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
686
announced last week that he was minded to give the Civil Aviation Authority a direction preventing a resumption of the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link.
In our view, the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter link can no longer be justified now that fast alternative connections are available which should prove acceptable to the majority of passengers wishing to travel between the two airports.
As required under section 6 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, my right hon. Friend has consulted the Civil Aviation Authority before giving it a direction, and our officials have written to British Caledonian. The authority has said that it has no comments to make on the proposal that the Secretary of State should issue a direction.
We realise that the announcement will have come as a great disappointment to British Caledonian and to the many hon. Members and others who have supported the continuation of the helicopter link. It has not made our task any easier to know that, whatever my right hon. Friend decided, we would disappoint as many people as we satisfied. But it is the responsibility of Government to make hard choices, and we cannot shirk that.
My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to look again at the need for a scheduled helicopter service between Heathrow and Gatwick, if the question were to be referred to him at a future date.
Given that the balance between the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter link and its economic benefits is fine, it would be wrong for us to suggest that the balance could never shift. For example—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—there can be no guarantee that adequate surface links between the airports will be maintained in terms of speed, frequency and quality of the available services and facilities.
Nor should we rule out the possibility of operating an air link at some future date in such a way that significantly reduced the environmental impact. But any such reappraisal must be for the future, and after the alternatives to the helicopter link have had a year or two to prove themselves.
I very much hope that once my right hon. Friend has formally announced his decision, the issue will be accepted as closed, at least for the time being. The main task then will be to make the surface links work as well as possible.
Question pat and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Libya
  Libya
  Lifeboatmen (Taxation)
  Lifeboatmen (Taxation)
  Scotch Whisky
  Scotch Whisky
  Nuclear Weapons Programme
  Nuclear Weapons Programme
  Foreign Vegetables (Duties)
  Foreign Vegetables (Duties)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
  EC (Agricultural Expenditure)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Aircraft Hijacking (Extradition)
  Aircraft Hijacking (Extradition)
  Crime Rate (South Glamorgan)
  Crime Rate (South Glamorgan)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Violent Crime
  Violent Crime
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Merseyside Police
  Merseyside Police
  Data Protection Act
  Data Protection Act
  Armley and Wakefield Prisons
  Armley and Wakefield Prisons
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. and Mrs. Stapleton
  Mr. and Mrs. Stapleton
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
ENERGY
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Private Property (Rights of Entry)
  Private Property (Rights of Entry)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Japan (Leather Industry)
  Japan (Leather Industry)
  North-West (Development Agency)
  North-West (Development Agency)
  South-Western Electricity Council
  South-Western Electricity Council
  Castleford
  Castleford
  Australian Wool
  Australian Wool
  China
  China
  European Community
  European Community
  Massey-Ferguson Holdings
  Massey-Ferguson Holdings
  Soviet Union (Tourism)
  Soviet Union (Tourism)
DEFENCE
  Gruinard Island
  Gruinard Island
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Defence Planning Committee
  Defence Planning Committee
  Circular NDHD 11–82
  Circular NDHD 11–82
  Armed Forces Pay
  Armed Forces Pay
  RAF Facilities (Security)
  RAF Facilities (Security)
  Type 23 Frigates
  Type 23 Frigates
  United States Bases
  United States Bases
  Manned Aircraft (Armaments)
  Manned Aircraft (Armaments)
  Battlefield Nuclear Weapons
  Battlefield Nuclear Weapons
  Eurofighter
  Eurofighter
  NATO
  NATO
  Libya
  Libya
  Exercise Lean Look
  Exercise Lean Look
  Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  Sea Eagle Missile
  Sea Eagle Missile
  Tyres (Contracts)
  Tyres (Contracts)
  NATO Ambassadors
  NATO Ambassadors
  Trident D5 Weapon System
  Trident D5 Weapon System
  Departmental Housing (Shoeburyness)
  Departmental Housing (Shoeburyness)
  Experimental Aircraft Projects
  Experimental Aircraft Projects
  Water Tank, Walker Drive, South Queensferry
  Water Tank, Walker Drive, South Queensferry
WALES
  Rates (Cardiff)
  Rates (Cardiff)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Renovation Grants
  Renovation Grants
  Household Projections
  Household Projections
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Armagh Prison
  Armagh Prison
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Women's Aid
  Women's Aid
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Kenwood House
  Kenwood House
  Nuclear Accidents (Evacuation)
  Nuclear Accidents (Evacuation)
TRANSPORT
  Space Saver Spare Wheels
  Space Saver Spare Wheels
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Hazardous Substances
  Hazardous Substances
  Fishing Vessels (Distress Beacons)
  Fishing Vessels (Distress Beacons)
  Universities and Public Sector Institutions
  Universities and Public Sector Institutions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Computers
  Computers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Trial Nuclear Test Ban
  Trial Nuclear Test Ban
  Prisoners of Conscience
  Prisoners of Conscience
  Soviet Nuclear Accident
  Soviet Nuclear Accident
  Sinai Multinational Force
  Sinai Multinational Force
EMPLOYMENT
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Industrial Language Training Centre
  Industrial Language Training Centre
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Greater London (Manufacturing Jobs)
  Greater London (Manufacturing Jobs)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Redundancy Fund
  Redundancy Fund
  Disabled Persons (Employment Initiatives)
  Disabled Persons (Employment Initiatives)
  Power Stations (Asbestos)
  Power Stations (Asbestos)
  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Mines and Quarries Inspectorate
  Coal and Glass Industries
  Coal and Glass Industries
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Microwave Radiation
  Microwave Radiation
  Leicester (Ministerial Visit)
  Leicester (Ministerial Visit)
  Job Security Clearance
  Job Security Clearance
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community Food Exports
  European Community Food Exports
  Frozen Food
  Frozen Food
SCOTLAND
  Housing Improvement, Maryhill
  Housing Improvement, Maryhill
  Regional Councils (Expenditure)
  Regional Councils (Expenditure)
  Mental Health Officers
  Mental Health Officers
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Bed and Breakfast Establishments
  Bed and Breakfast Establishments
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Disablement Benefit
  Disablement Benefit
  Pontefract Health Authority
  Pontefract Health Authority
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Board for Disablement Services
  Board for Disablement Services
  Reye's Syndrome
  Reye's Syndrome
  Neurosurgery
  Neurosurgery
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  General Practice (Premises)
  General Practice (Premises)
  Central Birmingham Health Authority
  Central Birmingham Health Authority
  Insulation Projects
  Insulation Projects
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Agriculture (Self-employed Persons)
  Agriculture (Self-employed Persons)
  Agriculture (Expenditure Limits)
  Agriculture (Expenditure Limits)

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

Profit-sharing Schemes
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations they intend to institute about the extension of profit-sharing schemes, and what is the likely timetable for such consultations.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the preliminary discussions with employers and others foreshadowed in the Budget speech of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be completed by the summer. If reactions are sufficiently encouraging as to the practicalities and the potential benefits to the economy, the intention would be to issue a consultation document before the Summer Recess containing detailed proposals for a scheme for tax relief to encourage profit sharing.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Can he assure the House that the document will include profit sharing within the industrial sector and perhaps linked also to other factors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As I see it, there are three stages. First, we must see what are the initial reactions before a decision is taken to issue a consultation document. Then the consultation document will be issued and we shall see what happens as a result of the consequent discussions. After that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will make up his mind as to the steps he wishes to take; but I hope very much that what my noble friend mentions will be included.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister recall the Chancellor's first Budget, in which he made what he thought was to be a strong case for fiscal neutrality; that is to say, company directors should not have complex matters intervening in their decision-making processes and they should not be burdened with tax incentives, which he sought to remove? Is it now the Chancellor's case, or the Government's case, that the principle of tax neutrality has been dropped or that it is different as between individuals and companies?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very appreciative of the noble Lord's memory, which goes back a long way and covers many Budget speeches. I think what the Chancellor is really doing is seeing whether there is a way in which we can encourage
1030
profit sharing so as to ensure that all sides of industry work together. That is a motive which has everything to commend it and if it requires a tax incentive for the first few years to introduce it, then so be it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that this tax incentive will be for only a few years, or has the principle really changed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am suggesting that we have preliminary consultations; then we go for a consultative document; and then we see what reception we get. As in all things, it is as well to get to the end of the road before we judge what the whole matter is worth.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the extent of the consultations; that is, with which bodies they will be held?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that will depend on the results of the preliminary consultations which are now taking place. If we want adequate consultation to take place, we must do two things. First, we must see what are the preliminary reactions and, secondly, my right honourable friend the Chancellor must make up his mind as to which bodies he will consult. The proposal yesterday met with a receptive response and I had hoped that your Lordships would be as receptive as the CBI and the TUC. If there is anything in this world that we must do, it is to accept change; we must not always be reactionary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does not the remarkable success of the Government's policy in reducing the rate of inflation augur well for the outcome of these matters which have been mentioned?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope very much that the remarkable success of the Government's economic policies will augur well for the success of this proposal, as it will for all the matters on which the Government are engaged.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that it was in this country that the pioneers of the principle of profit sharing really established themselves? Would he not think it sensible and good to seek advice and guidance from the British co-operative movement, who were the authors of the entire principle in the whole wide world?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will go to the co-operative movement.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I welcome the Government's intention to give assistance in this form to this particular group of workers. However, will the noble Lord the Minister accept that if the Government do that—which we would welcome—they will then have an obligation to do something comparable for workers in the public sector such as nurses, firemen and prison officers, whose organisations cannot conceivably make any profits for them to share in?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think we are looking at two entirely separate matters. We are looking at proposals for profit sharing which are first being put out for preliminary discussion so as to find a way in which workers, management and all industry can share future profits, perhaps in an effort to break the spiral of paying ourselves too much money. I must point out that of all the industrialised nations we have the worst record for paying ourselves above the going rate of inflation. I hope very much that the results of this proposal will bring to an end the 80-year period in which in industry the spirit has often been one of confrontation and not co-operation. That is an outcome we should all like to see.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the three-year limit on the duration of tax concessions absolutely firm, or will that point be included in the consultation process?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, at the moment we are at the very early stage. I suspect that everything will be involved in the consultation process.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that proposals very similar to this were advanced in the Liberal yellow book of 1928? Have not the Government taken rather a long time to catch up?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord's knowledge of the Liberal yellow book.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the TUC be involved in the preliminary consultation process?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes; all parties will be.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take care that this excellent idea is not buried under the tombstone of cumbersome procedures and tiresome restrictions?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord not misleading the House on this issue? Was it not clear in the Chancellor's speech last night that he was not talking about profit-sharing? He was talking about dividing the wage between a basic wage and a supplement which would vary according to the profits declared by the company in any year. There was no question whatever that the profits themselves would be shared among the workers.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am afraid that I fail to follow the noble Lord's question. I would merely say that I am not in any way misleading your Lordships' House.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether those sharing in the profits will also share in the losses if something goes wrong?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the essence of profit sharing is that it will be just that—sharing in the profits and also sharing in any resultant losses.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that in its note to the National Economic Development Council the Treasury pointed out that the definition of "profit-linked income" would have to go down as far as the business and profit centre? If so, will he agree that this procedure involves the publication to interested parties, like employees, of disaggregated profit and loss statements for businesses and profit centres? Will he accept that this goes far beyond the present practice and present requirement? Will he also agree that some noble Lords opposite might well worry about the ability of management to manage in those circumstances?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that the result of the consultative process will be that in talking about profit-sharing we shall be talking about profit-sharing within particular profit centres and that means going down to particular profit centres. But I hope that no one on my side of the House, or anyone in your Lordships' Chamber for that matter, need worry about the future ability of managers to manage.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, what is the noble Lord's response to the criticism that the Government's proposals fail to make adequate provision for employees to receive information on matters of concern to them as employees, or to be consulted when decisions affecting their interests are taken?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are at a very preliminary stage indeed, and I think it would be as well to see whether it goes further and, when it goes further, to look at the results of these consultations before we start looking at detail.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord did not understand my question. May I ask him to consult with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who last night on television quite clearly described his proposals as not profit sharing? He described his proposals as a basic wage plus a supplement that would vary according to profits. But he made it quite clear that this was not a scheme in which profits themselves would be used for that supplement.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has described a classic profit sharing arrangement in which workers share, in addition to their wage, a formula based upon the amount of the profits. It is not in that sense an actual share in the profits. It is an accretion to them. I fail to see the distinction. I think the noble Lord is wrong in saying that I have misled the House. I also think he is wrong in persisting with this point.

European Community: UK Payments
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how payments to the EC have changed in real terms since 1979 and how this change compares with the period 1974 to 1979.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, our net contribution to the Community in 1985 was £1,871 million, which was, for a number of special factors, unusually and regrettably high. It compares with a figure for 1979 of £1,571 million in 1985 prices. The equivalent figure for 1974 was £98 million. Our net contribution over the years 1974–1979 was, of course, reduced by the effects of the transitional financial arrangements applying for the first few years after accession. I have arranged for a table showing our annual net contributions to the Community Budget since 1974 to be published in the Official Report.
Following is the table referred to:

Current prices

1985 prices

1974

29

98

1975

-56

-155

1976

167

402

1977

369

780

1978

822

1,561

1979

947

1,571

1980

706

977

1981

397

491

1982

606

698

1983

647

709

1984

656

689

1985

1,871

[1,871]

Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I take it that the effort of Her Majesty's Government to keep EC expenditure under control is one of their major objectives at the present time.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. Last year the contribution we made to the Community was unfortunately and regrettably high. That was because of the non-receipt, or the delayed receipt, of our 1984 abatement, and other matters as well. But for those adjustments, the normal contribution would have been substantially lower.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the message from the table of figures which he has kindly said he will place in the Official Report is that the contribution would have been so much greater had measures not been taken by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there I must agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, am I not right in assuming from one reference in the reply of the noble Lord the Minister that the table will be based both on current prices and on real terms?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it will be based on current prices and on 1985 prices.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister not a little foolish to take too much party political credit for having reduced the net budget contributions, given that, despite all the juggling with figures which he announced initially, in 1985 the net contribution was substantially higher than it had ever been? Would it not be better if we concentrated on trying to obtain major changes in the agriculture budget, which would generally help this country and indeed the Community?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have no doubt that adjustments should be made to the agriculture budget. But I would be failing in my position in the House if I did not point out to your Lordships that, if we had made the adjustments which we should have received—and which were received a few days later—the contribution last year would have been lower in real terms that the contribution for 1978.

Maudsley Hospital
2.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 take action to preserve essential functions and services at the Maudsley Hospital in any reorganisation that may be in prospect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that the special health authority which manages the Maudsley and the Associated Bethlem Royal Hospital has over-spent its budget and has recently made proposals designed to contain this over-spending. I am also aware of the concern that has been expressed by members of the public, the press, staff and patients about some of these proposals, but I must emphasise that proposals for rationalisation of clinical services are still in the process of discussion.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Bearing in mind the enlightening series of articles in The Times newspaper earlier this year on mental illness and on schizophrenia in particular, will she try to ensure that the unsurpassed work that has been carried out by this hospital continues without interruption or limitation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the services provided at the Maudsley and Royal Bethlem Hospitals are of national, indeed international, importance. It is a centre of excellence and we are anxious to see the further development of its role both as a provider of services and in support of the excellent teaching and research functions of the associated Institute of Psychiatry. The Government have no plans to alter the status of this or any other of the postgraduate special health authorities.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I greatly welcome the statement just made by the noble Baroness concerning

1035
the value of this great centre of excellence, the Maudsley Hospital. However, is she aware that the proposed cuts in clinical services are precisely in those categories which the Government claim to give highest priorities—disturbed adolescents, mentally ill children, drug addicts, alcoholics, and those suffering from brain damage and cancer of the brain? Is she aware that these cuts in clinical services will also have a great effect on research and on training? Does she not feel that the department must stop this happening; otherwise we shall see another centre of excellence cease to be a world-wide centre of excellence?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the curtailment of services, I understand that no decisions have yet been made except in the case of neurosurgery, where short-term closures have been agreed on an experimental basis. For the information of the House I would point out that I understand that at its meeting last night the SHA decided on the first phase of a series of measures and will enter into discussions with staff on a second phase of measures to be introduced in the months to come. The authority has also expressed the wish to discuss its future financial allocations with my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of Health. He will be visiting the hospitals later this week.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to other fields but can she explain why there seems to be no change in neurosurgery? I understand from my visit to the Maudsley yesterday that there has been an increase of 250 per cent. in the waiting lists for beds in the neurological unit. Some of those are extremely urgent cases. Surely that ought to be included among the issues that should be postponed. Is she aware that it is not only the Maudsley that is in peril? If she looks at this evening's Standard, she will see that the main teaching hospitals in Britain are also in peril.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to neurosurgery, the noble Lord will recall that I have just said that no decisions were made on curtailment of services except in the case of neurosurgery, where short-term closures have been agreed. The valuable neurological services provided by the Maudsley on behalf of the South-East Thames region and others will continue at the present level while future services are examined. The consultant neurosurgeons have given an assurance that the closure of the unit now proposed for six weeks in the summer and two weeks at Christmas will not affect patient services, but this will be closely monitored by the SHA. I am assured that alternative arrangements will be made for any emergency arising during the closure period.

UK Pensioners in Canada: Convention
2.54 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their understanding of the amount of money which the
1036
Canadian Government would make available under a reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom on pensions upratings, and the purposes to which it would be put.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Canadian Government would make available an amount of money which in 1983 they estimated at 21½ million dollars a year. At present only residence in Canada is counted for Canadian old-age security benefits. The Canadian Government would modify the residence test to the advantage of people in or from the United Kingdom.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that disappointing and tired old reply—the same reply we have had for many years now. Does she accept that the Canadian Government are prepared to put in the 21.5 million dollars as soon as an agreement can be reached with the United Kingdom Government to pay the initial index-linked uprating that is necessary? Can she explain, because I fail to understand it, why it is possible to come to arrangements with Austria, Israel, Turkey, the United States, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, the Bermudas and 21 other Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries and yet not come to an agreement with Canada, which is more than willing to reach such an agreement and has made such a genuine and generous offer in order to get this off the ground?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, your Lordships will have to forgive the length of my reply to that rather long question. In principle the Government accept the case for a comprehensive social security convention with Canada which would enable increases in pensions to be paid. The problem is one of cost. With regard to the money which the Canadian Government quoted as being available in 1983, I understand that the 21½ million dollars is made up of 13 million dollars for people in Canada and 8½ million dollars for people in the United Kingdom. The money would not come to the United Kingdom Exchequer and would not affect the amount which we should have to find out of social security funds in order to finance the uprating.
With regard to the deals which we made with other countries which were reached in the 1950s and 1960s, there is little doubt that had it been possible around that time to reach a similar agreement with Canada, we should have done so. We offered it in 1972, but the Canadian authorities were unable to negotiate with us at that time. Financial constraints in the United Kingdom then tightened.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying to the House that only the question of cost is inhibiting some solution to this problem? If so, can she explain why arrangements were made with 26 other countries which made no contribution at all to help? There is a great feeling among elderly United Kingdom citizens who have gone to Canada. Many of them—widows and widowers—have gone to live with their married sons or daughters, have made a home there, and they save the DHSS a great deal of money by doing so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to costs, the initial cost to the United Kingdom based on the number of pensions at December 1985–56,451—would be about £4·8 million a year. The ultimate cost would be more than £35 million a year. These estimates are based on the number of pensioners at the end of 1985 and November 1985 rates of benefit. We cannot at present commit resources on this scale. With regard to agreements with other countries, I have previously answered that point.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave us a figure for 1972. Can she give us more up-to-date information on when she feels there will be a settlement of this injustice?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness may have misunderstood me. The year 1972 was the year when we offered an agreement to the Canadian Government, who were then not able to come to an agreement with us because at that time they did not have the power to do so. Since then our financial situation has tightened.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have had correspondence from people in Canada who in addition to feeling let down by not being given increments from the United Kingdom are concerned about the great delay in even the existing pension being sent to them, in some areas a delay of four or five weeks? They have been in contact with Newcastle but they have not been able to get an improvement. Will the noble Baroness please look into this to see whether anything can be done so that pensions can be paid at the proper time?
Baroness Trumpington: Gladly, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that there are many old people, as has been described by my noble friend, who have moved to Canada during their pensionable years to live with relatives and who are being denied their rightful pensions? When the noble Baroness talks about a cost to the Government, is it not the case that those old people have been contributing to their pensions all their working lives and that it is their money that is due to them and not Government money?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that there is not a pot of money sitting there, waiting to be paid to pensioners. He should know that the money paid by people in work goes to pay the pensioners now. The agreements that were made with other countries were made made at a time when this country could afford more money going out and when there were fewer pensioners. The situation has now changed.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I return to the original Answer of the noble Baroness, when she mentioned 1983. That was the year when our Prime Minister agreed with Prime Minister Trudeau that the matter was urgent and the Government of the noble Baroness had accepted the principle of the reciprocal arrangement. What has happened since then?
1038
When the noble Baroness quotes a figure of £35 million, she is doing what has been done in every reply that we have had to this question; she is misleading the House. We are not asking for the total uprating and retrospective payment of all increases to all pensioners; that is the £35 million. We are asking simply for increases, as and when they become due, to be paid to those people in Canada who qualify for them. That is reflected in the figure of £4·5 million maximum that the noble Baroness mentioned later.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I merely repeat what I said earlier: that the problem is one of cost. Officials of my department are in close touch with Canadian officials to bring the terms of a suitable convention as near completion as possible, as soon as possible.

Business
3.1 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Swinton will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the interim settlement of the teachers' pay dispute.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to company insolvency and winding up (including the winding up of companies that are not insolvent, and of unregistered companies); enactments relating to the insolvency and bankruptcy of individuals; and other enactments bearing on those two subject matters, including the functions and qualification of insolvency practitioners, the public administration of insolvency, the penalisation and redress of malpractice and wrongdoing, and the avoidance of certain transactions at an undervalue. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Company Directors Disqualification Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the disqualification of persons from being directors of companies, and from being otherwise concerned with a company's affairs. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Isle of Wight Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Ullapool Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Industrial Training Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Latent Damage Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may venture to say a few words at this stage, having in effect given notice of my intention to do so at the Report stage of the Bill. I then respectfully requested that further consideration be given to various aspects of the Bill, in particular the two aspects in the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, which were designed to take account of the special position of the construction industry in regard to the so-called long stop provision and the starting date thereof.
Nevertheless, the arguments failed to find favour at that stage, although there was, as noble Lords may recall, a responsible body of opinion—I think, informed opinion in the main—that was in favour of a revision of the Bill in accordance with the noble Lord's amendments. There being no amendments tabled for Third Reading, the Bill will now go to another place in its present state.
I hope that that will not prevent a further consideration by Ministers for which I asked at Report stage. I said on Report that there seemed to be a case for such consideration, and I also asked whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be good enough to give further and better particulars of the list of supporters of the 15-year period that he cited at col. 128 of Hansard for 8th April, and give an indication of whether their support precluded an option of the 12-year period.
Following my intervention at Report stage, I have been favoured with several communications from organisations both in the construction industry and interested in the subject matter of the Bill. Among them was the Building Employers Confederation, who state inter alia in the letter that they wrote to me, that:
"In the list of bodies identified by the Lord Chancellor during the debate in Committee as supporting a 15-year long stop period, reference is made to the BEC. I do not know why this is the case because in all our communications with the Law Reform Committee we have always expressed our dislike for a 15-year period although subject to that, we have broadly expressed approval for the Lord Chancellor's proposals".
1040
Others who have been good enough to send me their views are the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Association of Consulting Engineers, the British Property Federation, and, through the RIBA, the Institution of Civil Engineers. Two points have impressed me in the communications that I have received. The first is the congruity of view between, on the one hand, those who represent the construction industry and, on the other, those who represent the building owner; that is to say, the potential plaintiff seeking remedies under the Bill. This, I would respectfully suggest, weakens the point made by the noble and learned Lord as to the assumed contrast between what he called extremely well organised, articulate bodies—meaning, thereby, the potential defendants—and unfortunate victims who are not an identifiable body.
I submit that this is at best an over-simplification since members of the professional bodies are the agents, possessing great skill, expertise and dedication, of the building owner or client; for example, the members of the Royal Institute of British Architects in building contract cases and the Institution of Civil Engineers in civil engineering contract cases. The British Property Federation also represents those who own property, either for occupation or for investment, and that organisation told me that it was the federation that obtained the agreement between the construction industry and the professional bodies for a 12-year compromise period specified in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
Indeed, the Institution of Civil Engineers wrote to Ministers in the Department of the Environment expressing disappointment at the refusal to take matters further with the Lord Chancellor. Its disappointment was the keener because of an earlier indication that agreement would gain ministerial support. The agreement was reached with some difficulty and not without some sacrifice of the special interests of the parties arriving at the agreement. However, although agreement was reached, support for it was not forthcoming.
The second salient point which has impressed me following the communications which I have received since the Report stage is that the congruity of view to which I have referred derives from an acceptance of the practicalities of the situation. In particular it derives from the imperative necessity, as I submit it to be, of making the limitation period neither so long nor so imprecise as to make insurance impracticable. The absence of certainty has led to great difficulty in getting inurance cover in this sphere. Without insurance cover a successful plaintiff may well, in the end, whistle for his damages.
The problem of obtaining appropriate indemnity assurance for professional services has, I am informed, recently been brought to the attention of Ministers. Nevertheless, its implications for this Bill have apparently not been absorbed or taken into account. This is a flaw in the Bill. It is a patent rather than a latent defect in a Bill of good intent derived from a report of so distinguished a committee. It will go to the other place in its present form and there, it is to be hoped, it will be improved, because its present form is imperfect.

1041
However, if it is to be improved in the other place, realistically one must accept that it can only be by Government amendment and with Government support. That is the effect of what has been called the elected dictatorship. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may indeed recall the phrase which, in spite of the efforts of some, still is with us today. Therefore, I ask Ministers not at this stage to close their minds. I ask them to consider the matter afresh without obstinate precommitment. I ask them to have regard to the congruity of view obtaining among the informed and the concerned. Finally, I ask Ministers to introduce certainty and practicality for the benefit of all and to the detriment of none.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, in rising to address the House on Third Reading of the Bill I willingly repeat the thanks that I gave to the noble and learned Lord on Second Reading. I willingly repeat my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for bringing this Bill before the House and I also willingly repeat my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for the courteous, conscientious and extensive consultations which were carried out by his officials. I thank too the Government for agreeing to take a short postponement of Third Reading to enable me to return from the United States of America to participate on Third Reading.
While repeating those thanks—and I should be happy to repeat them in more fulsome terms—I believe that these extensive consultations which have been carried out by the Government have had an unfortunate consequence. I believe that they have produced in the Government a belief that no further revisions to this wholly technical Bill were either necessary or desirable. Hence, the 15 amendments which were moved in Committee, in some of which I participated, and the six amendments which were moved on Report were—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but, having regard to the acoustics of this House, I find it difficult to hear at this distance what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I do not think it would be the wish of this House for me to bellow but if I position myself in a location nearer to a microphone perhaps that will deal with the problem of the acoustics and with the problem of some noble Lords at the other end of the Chamber who are unable to hear me.
I was referring to the Committee and Report stages and reminding your Lordships that the 15 amendments which were moved in Committee and the six amendments moved on Report were all rejected by the Government, although several of them were only drafting amendments and although some were suggested by professional bodies, such as the Law Society, whose only desire was to improve the terms of the Bill and to clarify its intent. Indeed, these consultations—and the findings of the Law Reform Committee—were often used by the Government as a reason for this House not exercising, on this Bill, its right to act as a revising Chamber. I think that was regrettable because almost all who were consulted
1042
reached their position on the balance of argument. Indeed, that is how the Law Reform Committee reached many of its conclusions, having considered the arguments on one side and the arguments on the other side, it then, on balance, reached the recommendations that it did.
Thus, while it can be said that the principles of the Bill are supported by all those whom the Government consulted, I do not think it can be said that a uniform blessing has been given to the drafting of this Bill. I refer to consultations carried out with the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Official Referees and the Society of Construction Law. Each and every one of those bodies, while supporting the principles of the Bill and while supporting the Bill as a whole, had reservations in one place or another about the drafting of the Bill.
Out of our discussions and debates I believe one major defect has emerged. That defect was highlighted in the representations made by the construction and building industries. Indeed, the nonsense is that this Bill will have its greatest use in activities in the building and construction industries—as was recognised by the Law Reform Committee. Therefore in practical terms the Bill should be made to work for the building and construction industries.
Yet many—old and new—difficulties still exist. I refer to the uncertainties over the accrual of the cause of action—the uncertainties of the test of Pirelli of "significant damage" and the difficulties of actions accruing in tort and contract at different times. I refer to the "knowledge" tests in Section 14A and the activating event for the long stop period, which is to be found in Section 14B.
Already there is an enormous amount of litigation arising out of uncertainties in our law as applied to the building and construction industries. Your Lordships may remember that, as I mentioned in the debate we held on 10th February, there has been a doubling of the number of cases in the Official Referee's Court every five years. Indeed, for the period between 1976 and 1982, the number of cases taken by the Official Referee's Court doubled exactly. Again, as I mentioned in the debate on the 10th February, records of the Royal Institute of British Architects show that the number of claims in 1978 relating to the building industries was 200 and in 1982 there were 500, which, if my arithmetic is correct, is an increase of 125 per cent. Therefore, I think it should be a matter of considerable concern that all the major institutions in the building and construction industries have expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the Bill.
Though the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has already referred to some of these institutions, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention more precisely to those institutions which have expressly stated dissatisfaction with the drafting of this Bill. I refer to the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers and, with those, the Institution of Mechanical Engineering, the Institution of Electrical Engineering and the Institution of Chemical Engineering. I refer to the Association of Consulting Engineers, to the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors And the Building Employers' Confederation, which was one of

1043
the institutions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. Finally, as did the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, I refer to the British Property Federation, which is not on the side of the defendants but on the clients' side. I should like to quote from a recent letter that was written by the Director General of the British Property Federation to the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, where it is said:
"We are the clients. The British Property Federation represents the great majority of developers—property companies, banks, insurance companies, contractors, shopping chains and so on … Our fear is that the proposals in the Bill will involve litigation about whether a case is time-barred or not, in other words, litigation about whether litigation can start. This is nonsense".
So it is on both sides of the industry that concern has been expressed and it has not simply come from the potential defendants as opposed to potential plaintiffs. I think it is right that your Lordships take note that these industries play a very important part in our economy. I take but one example, from the Association of Consulting Engineers, whose members are currently responsible for overseas currency earnings of £560 million per annum, which is about one third of the earning power of our banks. I believe that their voices should be heard in this Bill and in other measures. They should be heard when they speak of increasing exposure to liability, increasing exposure to litigation, loss of recruitment and the cost of insurance. Not long ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, gave a passionate address in which he referred to the eroding position of the professions. I can do no better than adopt the words that the noble and learned Lord used in his address at the Fourth Rivers Lecture to the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. I referred to this at the Report stage, as your Lordships may remember. Referring to the professions, the noble and learned Lord said:
"we suffer a deliberate denigration of our ideals, and a continuous progressive and increasingly rapid diminution in our standards of life".
Then the noble and learned Lord spoke of the dangers:
"There is the danger from government. There is the danger from corporations, private and public. There is the danger from organised labour. Each and all of these influences is gradually encroaching on the integrity and independence of the professions".
He then summed up in this way:
"It is time that we came to look at one another and recognise in one another persons who are suffering from the same pressures, and who all need allies not simply to secure personal survival but to ensure the continuance of standards in society without which independent and honourable professions cannot continue to exist".
That is the worry that the professions see over this Bill and that is why, if satisfaction cannot be achieved in this Bill, the professions in the building and construction industries will be seeking again the leave of your Lordships' House for their case to be heard.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I intervene at this stage, but to preface my short speech I should like to make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, because I missed the first three or four minutes of his speech.
The Lord Chancellor: What a loss.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I did not hear the aside from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who is sitting on the Woolsack. But never in the history of your Lordships' House has a Member had such a good excuse as I have for being late. Contentedly reading the Latent Damage Bill, I was sitting in a stationary taxi on Waterloo Bridge when it was run into by a bus. I hope your Lordships will not suggest that there is some confusion in my mind as a result of that transport difficulty—although confusion developed afterwards on Waterloo Bridge in trying to decide where the fault lay. Fortunately, I had my card with me. I produced it and everyone almost knelt down, understanding that I should be a truthful witness.
I suppose it is inevitable that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in his splendid speech, which I support, should forget one matter, and that is that I wrote a letter to him. He referred to a number of letters but not to the letter in which I suggested something that could take place at Third Reading. He and I could not agree, however, on the right course to adopt.
In concluding my short but I hope sincere and very cogent observations at this stage, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord. If I may use the happy phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, the congruity of view arises from the practicality of the situation. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time just now, but I myself have had a large number of letters from people who are dealing with the practicalities of the situation arising over the inadequacy of this Bill for the construction industry.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and other noble Lords who have spoken in criticism of this Bill, as I did during its earlier stages. Noble Lords will remember that we had a considerable amount of discussion on the question of the long stop and on the difficulties which arise from determining the exact date of the breach of duty upon which the long stop depends. There was also a great deal of discussion on the uncertainty to which these problems gave rise.
Noble Lords may recall that at the Report stage I argued that the long stop provisions introduced under the Bill were no more certain than is the present law. My arguments are recorded in the Official Report for 28th April last, col. 23, so I shall not repeat them here in detail. But on that occasion I quoted the Law Reform Committee's criticism of the difficulty in fixing the time of damage under the present legal position and I quoted the committee's description of that task as being "time-consuming, expensive and sometimes impossible".
I then went on to say in reference to the proposed breach of duty (I am quoting now from col. 23):
"In fact, the breach of duty can only be determined if the courts are asked to perform time-consuming, expensive and sometimes impossible tasks of ascertaining exactly when it occurred. I suggest to your Lordships that if that could not be justified in connection with the time of actual damage, I do not see how it can be justified in terms of the breach of duty. The committee criticised the uncertainty in one case but the Bill keeps it in the other".
Unfortunately those arguments were not replied to in the course of the Report stage debate. They still appear

1045
sound to me, and I should like to have the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on them before we end the debate today.
There is one other matter that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor raised more than once during the earlier debates on the Bill, and that was the quite proper matter of the injustices that might be faced by clients under the proposed amendments which we moved and which were later withdrawn. I have a copy of the letter to John Patten, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred earlier, and the important point in it is the one that he made: namely, that it came from the British Property Federation, which said, "We are the clients". He quoted part of the letter, and I do not intend to repeat that, but at the end of the letter the director general of the federation, writing to the Minister, says:
"If this means a slight reduction in the overall period within which claims can be made"—
referring to the length of the long stop—
"then the client is prepared to accept that. His paramount aim is to obtain the greater certainty and reduction of litigation that would result from one unequivocable date".
The client there is agreeing with the arguments which we put forward from the point of view of the builder who would be the defendant in any litigation.
The last matter to which I wish to refer today is this. During the discussion of one of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at Report stage, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (I thought rather chastising us) said that if we proceeded with the amendments that,
"might lead to the foundering of the whole Bill, and they might lose their long stop altogether"—
suggesting to us that the other place might throw it out. That remark can be found in col. 33 of the Official Report for 28th April.
Since then I have discussed the matter with a number of people in the construction industry. Their response to that implied threat is interesting. "So what?", they say to me. "Since the provisions for the long stop are every bit as uncertain as the existing law is, why go to the bother of changing it?" I do not suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he should throw out the Bill at Third Reading instead of sending it on to the other place, but that is what the people to whom I spoke suggested to me. If the Bill were to be dropped or thrown out in another place, architects, consultants and builders feel that they would be no worse off than if the Bill went through. Right or wrong, that is how they feel.
What arises from our lengthy discussions is that not quite enough consideration has yet been given to the spirit and the strength underlying the amendments that we put forward. I earnestly beg the noble and learned Lord to think carefully about this matter before the Bill goes to another place.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I begin by expressing sympathy at least from this side of the House with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the hope that no latent defect results from the unhappy events that took place on Waterloo Bridge.
In the speech that I made on the Bill on Second Reading I concluded by saying that it seemed to me
1046
that the Bill was extremely valuable and I commended it to the House. My understanding of the speeches that were made on that occasion was and remains that that was the view of Members of the House generally. I hardly knew the Bill—and it has been altered not at all—in the speeches today, although it is the same Bill that we debated on 17th March. I took the trouble a moment ago, for example, to look back at what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said:
"I welcome this Bill for several reasons. First of all, I welcome it because it produces justice for plaintiffs, whether inarticulate or articulate".
He went on to say:
"I also welcome the Bill on behalf of defendants because it does fairness to them".—[Official Report, 17/3/86; col. 803.]
I do not know why the same Bill has suddenly become so monstrously unfair in the meantime, as it is sought to persuade us.
I had the temerity to move an amendment which, had it been accepted, would have provided to the courts a power to extend the long stop. That is something that I do not think would have been done very often, but it seemed to me that there was something to be said for the power being provided. Although I did not pursue it on that occasion, I am bound to say that if there was any suggestion of the long stop being reduced in time, there would be a much stronger argument for the introduction in another place of some such qualification in similar terms to the power granted to the courts in relation to personal injuries—which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will not need the benefit of in due course.
The points that have been made forcibly during the course of this afternoon were considered by the Law Reform Committee over the four years of its life. The question of insurance was considered. I have no doubt that all the bodies that were enumerated by the noble Lords, Lord Broxbourne and Lord Hacking, had, and doubtless took, the opportunity of giving their strong views on the sort of points that have been advanced today. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the Second Reading and in other debates, at the end of the day the committee reached what no doubt was a compromise hut one which was intended to produce the fairness to both sides of which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, expressed appreciation in his speech on Second Reading.
Whatever may be the view—and one can understand it—of highly interested parties, such as the professions of architect and so on that have been referred to, one has to bear in mind that in this Bill we are dealing with the situation of a person who has suffered loss as the result of a wrong done to him by some other person. Prima facie, in that situation that person should be compensated, but that right to compensation has traditionally for all kinds of reasons been restricted by the necessity for some form of limitation. It should not be restricted too far or we deprive a person who should have a remedy of that particular remedy.
It is in that context that the Law Reform Committee sought to balance the various claims and reached the conclusions which until now have been accepted by the House. I hope that they will continue to be

1047
accepted even though they do not go so far as I should have liked to go, and hence I have put down the amendment. I believe that the compromise was a fair one. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will continue to be firm against any derogation from it and earn the pair of white gloves which he has at the moment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I wish to say a word of welcome to the Bill, which I feel is necessary given the state of the law before the Bill was introduced. It deals with cases where, for instance, a house has been built on rubbishy foundations and the owner or occupier does not get to know of the damage until years afterwards when the house begins to crack and fall down.
Before a case called Pirelli, which was decided in the House of Lords, the courts had been working on a good line—time did not run against the man who owned or occupied the house until he discovered the damage or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. That good development was halted by a decision of your Lordships' House in the Pirelli case where it was said that that test was not correct and that we should go from the time that the damage occurred even though the person did not know of the damage or could not have discovered it. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that that was a matter that should be considered by the Law Commission, and it was.
Under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the committee produced a first class report. I wish that it had gone wider. I wish that it had applied not only in actions of negligence but when a duty of care had been broken with regard to contract and a statutory duty. My noble and learned friend Lord Scarman thought that that would be too adventurous. I think perhaps he was right to limit the matter as it has been. Although we tried one or two amendments, I hope that the Bill will have a good passage through both Houses and come into law. It deals with a much-needed reform.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the Third Reading debate. I should be doing the House a disservice if I merely repeated the arguments that I put forward on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, especially in the light of the two last speeches from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning which summarised in a compendious form the case that I was trying to put. It is basically that this is a Law Reform Committee Bill. It is not, as it were, a main Government programme Bill. It is based upon the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his friends. After four years of deliberation, they dealt with the problem which my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches has just adumbrated.
The Bill does two things and two things only. The first is to give a plaintiff who may have suffered damage without his knowledge and which was beyond his power of discovery, a further period within which
1048
to obtain his rights and to bring an action for something which somebody else has done wrong or for negligence.
I have been in touch with the noble and learned Lord in the course of the Bill but for reasons which are probably understood by a number of your Lordships he was unable to attend after Second Reading. It was recognised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his friends that under the existing law, as it is unaltered, an architect, a consulting engineer or whoever, could find himself liable for damages for negligence long after the period during which he could be expected to reply to the claim.
Various points of detail have been raised, but they are all Committee points which were dealt with in detail in Committee and on Report. In the end, it was recognised that the only way to deal with the matter was to fix a long stop, as it is called, beyond which the architect or whoever could not be sued, subject of course to the provision for fraud or deliberate concealment. Those are the only things that the Bill does. Some 140 organisations or individuals were consulted at length. There was a further consultation period by departments, including mine, during which I think about 74 comments were received. Those long stop figures were included.
I disagree with only one remark, which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon who described me as issuing a threat. I issued no threat at any stage. What I said was said by one of my predecessors, Lord Campbell, that law reform is by consent or not at all. What I have said is that I have a slot in the Government's programme for what is in effect the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the assurance, which I received from the Opposition and others, that this is an uncontroversial Bill. If it is to take a great deal of time, it will founder. That is not a threat. It is a statement of fact.
There has been a highly organised and concerted assault on the long stop provision basically by persons who want to shorten it in one way or another. It has also been extraordinarily misleading in some ways—for instance only last week or thereabouts, there was a letter in The Times from a responsible figure who said that the cost of insurance was
"spiralling rapidly in anticipation of the extended long stop period".
In fact of course there is no extended long stop period. The long stop period is a protection which has never existed before.
That brings me to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, who said that a defect of the Bill was that it did not deal with insurance. I thought that I had made it plain on Second Reading that insurance is the subject of a separate initiative by the National Economic Development Office and therefore has no place in the Bill. In so far as the Bill affects the ability of a potential defendant to insure, it is assisted by the long stop which never existed before. If it does not affect the insurance premium it has neither effect for good or bad, but in so far as the Bill can affect it, the existence of a long stop must make it easier to insure.
I have said all that I have to say about the Bill. I solemnly say to those who have criticised the details of the Bill that law reform is either by consent or not at

1049
all. This is a Bill for which I have obtained Government time, and it therefore forms part of the Government programme. It is not a programme Bill in the ordinary sense. It is an attempt to improve the law in the respects brilliantly summarised by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I am glad to find that on the Opposition Benches, at least, there is comprehension of that fact.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Teachers' Pay: Interim Settlement
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question that is being given in another place on the interim settlement of the teachers' pay dispute. The Statement is as follows:
"Last Friday, the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee agreed to increase teachers' salaries in England and Wales from 1st April 1986 by 5·5 per cent. or £520, whichever is the greater. This agreement was reached following undertakings to the management panel from all the teacher associations represented on the teachers' panel. First, the entire teachers' panel has given an assurance that there will be a return to peace and calm in our schools immediately. Secondly, the entire teachers' panel notes and supports the ACAS talks and will co-operate in every respect. Thirdly, the teachers' panel agrees that the payment at 1st April 1986 is without prejudice to any subsequent consideration by Burnham in the light of progress in the ongoing talks embracing all the aspects being discussed under the aegis of ACAS.
"This settlement clears the way for constructive discussion and negotiation under the leadership of the panel appointed by ACAS. It does not prejudge the outcome of the ACAS process and it is to that exercise that teachers, employers and the Government must look for a satisfactory longer-term outcome to the complex issues raised by the recent dispute. I very much welcome the fact that the National Union of Teachers, which represents a substantial group of teachers in our schools, will now play a full part. We must all welcome the assurances now given about the immediate return to peace and calm in our schools.
"The ACAS-led negotiations are addressing a range of issues—pay levels and structures, teachers' duties, teacher appraisal and career development and future negotiating machinery. Clearly, no Secretary of State can commit government in advance to the outcome of such an exercise. But I do wish the talks well and hope that they can result in satisfactory resolution of the fundamental problems arising from the present pay structure, the lack of definition about teachers' professional obligations,
1050
and performance appraisal and career development. The Government will consider the conclusions carefully and fully when those are available."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that my colleagues and I on this side of the House welcome the settlement very warmly indeed? It arose from a meeting initiated by my colleague in another place, Mr. Giles Radice, between the NUT and the local authority representatives. We are grateful to him for his efforts. Does the noble Earl realise that this is only a beginning and that if the Government are to bring a lasting peace—a peace that we all want very badly—to our schools, they will have to find more money than the amount promised last year of £400 million a year for four years?
Will the Government ensure that the hints this weekend by Mr. John Biffen and Mr. Nigel Lawson that we need to spend more money on education are translated as quickly as possible into cash? Will the Minister also agree that all the innovations proposed by the Secretary of State, including appraisal, can only be achieved with the co-operation of teachers? Will he mark his determination to seek that co-operation by withdrawing Clause 37 of the Education Bill on appraisal with its implication of coercion if he cannot negotiate it freely?
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should also like from these Benches to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. It is indeed welcome news that an interim settlement has been reached. It is particularly welcome that the National Union of Teachers has accepted it and will henceforth take part in the important discussions with ACAS. It is good also that an undertaking has been given that there will be no further disruption in schools while deliberations with ACAS are continuing. It looks, at last, as though there is light at the end of the tunnel in respect of a desperately damaging situation in our schools with the prospect of a solution being found perhaps by the end of the summer.
I should like to repeat the suggestion made by the noble Lord from the Labour Benches that the Government should consider withdrawing Clause 37 as a matter of diplomacy. One of the four working groups with ACAS is specifically preoccupied with the appraisal of teachers. It seems to me that it might be a diplomatic move to withdraw this proposal of reserve powers from the Secretary of State at this moment until the matter has been thoroughly discussed and agreement reached in the ACAS deliberations. That is all I wish to say. I thank the Minister again and welcome the good news.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful for the manner in which both the noble Lords, Lord Irving of Dartford and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, have received the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, asked whether the Government would make immediate extra finance available. I am afraid that they will not. Friday's settlement did not purport to satisfy the Government's conditions for extra resources. It was made clear to local authority employers in advance of last Friday's Burnham

1051
meeting that no extra resources would be made available by the Government at this time. Nonetheless, they chose to reach the settlement of last Friday. I am glad that the noble Lord pointed out that everything is much better done by co-operation. I can only echo that.
The noble Lord asked whether I would show a sign of goodwill by announcing immediately that we would withdraw Clause 37 of the Bill currently in progress through your Lordships' House. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. As I made clear over and over again at Committee stage of the Bill, this was always supposed to be a long stop—a very long stop—in case agreement is not reached. These talks are going on. They will go on for some time. With the best will in the world, there is absolutely no guarantee that a satisfactory result will come out of it. I cannot therefore given an undertaking. This is, as I say, a long stop. We must try to have it in the Bill, arranged as a long stop.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, everyone will feel the general relief that must be felt thoughout the country, particularly by parents, at the ending of this dispute, even though someone with as suspicious a mind as I have may think that its timing and the collaboration of Mr. Radice are not wholly to be disregarded in their political effects. I should like to ask my noble friend a question relating particularly to his reply about further resources. Does not the whole history of this dispute show once again the illogicality of a system in which an important body of people—namely, the teachers—are employed by one lot of people, the local authorities, and, in the end, paid for by central government? Is it not time that this anomaly was removed and that the teaching force, as in all other European countries, became direct employees of the Government, who actually pay them?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend. The whole point is that the teachers are employed and paid for by the local authorities.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Earl had to say regarding goodwill and give and take on both sides. Is he prepared to go back to his right honourable friend and ask him whether he would now be prepared to postpone the sitting of the GCE examination rather than rush it through at this stage?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, again, I cannot give that undertaking. I am of course aware that both the NUT and NAS/UWT regard the introduction of the GCSE as a separate matter from the pay dispute. In saying to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, that I am not prepared to go back to my right honourable friend and ask him to postpone this, I understand that my right honourable friend is very willing to receive from the teachers' organisations any further and detailed comments they may have about preparation for, and funding of, the GCSE. We stand ready to consider these matters further.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us will regard this amount which has been given, we assume as an interim arrangement, as a very meagre contribution to a great profession? Since we shall again be asked to consider the high increases to be awarded to judges, civil servants, admirals and various other persons of that kind, I hope that this is not going to be the end of the story and that there will be a real increase of some meaning to the teaching profession when these talks conclude.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should not have thought that this was a mean settlement. It is a settlement that has been agreed by the teachers and their employers, as I understand it, unanimously. I think that everybody is fairly satisfied with it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I hope that I was right in understanding the noble Earl to say that the Government would listen to representations from the local authority associations on adequate funding for the implementation of the GCSE. Will that include sufficient provision for the in-service training that will be necessary for that purpose?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, a lot of money is already going in. I think that the noble Lord got slightly muddled. I said that we would listen to the teachers on this, but of course we are also prepared to meet the local authority employers if they have any worries and concerns about it.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that all the parties to this unhappy situation have a chance for a new start and that it would be very sad indeed if the Government, by failing to respond with some cash, were to set back the whole enterprise in a way that would be damaging to everybody—schools, children and parents?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I just cannot accept that. I have said that it was made quite clear to the local authority employers in advance of last Friday's Burnham meeting that no extra resources would be made available by the Government on this last occasion. They have made what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said is a mean offer. But they have put it forward and it is up to the local authorities to meet the cost of the settlement from within their budgets.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
4.2 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extension of right to purchase and of "secure tenancy"]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 1(11) of that Act after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) where the landlord of a dwelling house is a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Association Act 1985 and the housing association total stock is less than 250 dwellings;".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apologies for bringing forward as Amendment No. 1 an amendment almost identical to one that was discussed in Committee. I want to make a final plea to the Minister, while hoping that he will have looked very carefully at the debate we had in Committee. He will have been aware of the very widespread view that was obvious then, particularly among Scottish Peers, about the importance of this amendment. As I say, I hope that at his leisure he has studied that debate and has gained some appreciation of the uniqueness of the Scottish community-based housing associations—I emphasise, community-based housing associations.
I make no apology for trying to get special treatment for these associations. In the old areas of the country and in the big cities, one of which I represented, we owe them an enormous debt. To digress slightly, before the advent of the associations—which were the result of enlightened thinking on housing generally and desperation over housing generally—the planners wanted to demolish acres and acres of that area of Glasgow called Partick and they finally did demolish acres of another area called Maryhill and many other parts of the city. But the housing associations, based on the caring, concerned and energetic local people, with little experience, got to work and helped in the rejuvenation of these run-down city areas.
The confidence in the whole areas increased. As I said at Second Reading, we reached the situation where the building societies, which previously had marked lines round certain parts of the inner cities within which no loans would be possible, began to rub out those lines so that it became possible in these rehabilitation areas for people to get loans to buy privately-owned houses. This was a great boost to the whole area. The building societies were a great help and new owner-occupiers were able to move in.
We ask in the amendment specifically for the smaller associations to be exempt from the right to buy. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, speaking at the Committee stage gave figures for the Scottish community-based housing associations. In Scotland we have 195 associations with 25,000 houses. That is an average of 128 houses per association. I know that averages are very wild, but they give an indication that when you are looking at Scotland and think of the Scottish housing associations you are dealing with a quite different sort of animal from the English associations. There are 2,450 associations in England owning something around half a million houses. This gives an average of 204 houses per association. But, as I have said, averages are dangerous things to play with; for in Scotland there are 30 associations which have under 50 houses and 53 associations which have fewer than 250 houses.
As to these small associations particularly—since I believe that the Minister has possibly closed his mind to the idea of any exemptions for the larger associations—any loss of housing stock would in many cases cause them to become unviable. We are talking about associations with a very small number of houses. Not only would that affect their viability. As to whatever was left of the housing stock that was available to the associations, available for people who were involved in providing houses to rent at reasonable and just rents, people who had given
1054
enormous amounts of their time, energy and ability would just lose interest in the whole association. I believe they would not accept the fact that the result of all their time, sweat and labour was suddenly taken out of the rental market.
With great seriousness I ask the Minister to look at this particular problem. As I say, I have no apologies for bringing it back. I think the results of the last discussion that we had on this, and the widespread support that it received, should be enough to make the Minister think again. I hope that he has done so in the period since the Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not think there is a great deal more to be said about this, except that I hope the Minister has had second thoughts. The case has been put from all parts of the House and put very reasonably. We are talking about 5,000 houses and not about a tremendous amount. We are not breaching any principle. In fact, we are making the principle sounder by providing for exceptions. All reasonable people will realise that there are exceptions to every rule; and I am sure that the Government are much more reasonable than they were a few days ago.
Perhaps the Minister will open his heart and listen to the arguments and give way on this small point which, nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, will make a tremendous difference to a whole lot of public-spirited people who are working very hard for an objective which only a short time ago was praised by the Secretary of State. He then spoke very much about the success of community housing associations. I do not think that this is the time to ruin them. I hope that the Minister will discard the brief that he is looking at so intently and give way with the good grace of which he is capable.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I believe that the amendment offers necessary protection to small rural housing associations without going against the principle of the Bill. Would not my noble friend the Minister agree that such a balance would be particularly evident if tenants of the small housing associations concerned were entitled to buy at discounted terms elsewhere? Yet why should it be necessary to protect small and rural housing associations at all; or conversely, if there is no attempt to protect them, what effect will that have on various considerations, including unit management costs, the continuing willingness of local voluntary management committees and related employment opportunities?
Would my noble friend not accept that it is in fact those aspects which stand to suffer and therefore that protection should be given in this case?
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what has been said by all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, pleaded with me to think again. He hopes that I read the record and that I may be persuaded by what is revealed there and also by what has been said here today. However, I would remind the noble Lord that I listened very carefully at the Committee stage

1055
and that the Committee, on a Division, rejected this very amendment. However, I have no complaints at all about the noble Lord bringing it back. I would, perhaps, have been particularly willing to be persuaded had compelling new arguments been put forward, but I am afraid that that is not the case. Just as my brief is the same as it was at the Committee stage, so the arguments put forward are identical to those which were put forward at the Committee stage. Therefore I am afraid that I am not persuaded by anything which has been said.
I told your Lordships on the previous occasion that we are not, by and large, breaking new ground in introducing a right to buy for housing association tenants in Scotland, but we are extending to additonal categories of tenant an already very successful policy which has been widely welcomed. The right to buy was not applied to housing association tenants under the 1980 Act, but since then housing associations have grown in number and they have matured. They now hold a sizeable stock of houses which have been provided with public money—a point which we must never forget—and it is difficult to justify continuing to exclude their tenants from rights which are enjoyed by tenants in the public sector in Scotland and by tenants of housing associations elsewhere in Great Britain. It would be clearly unjust to deny tenants the opportunity to purchase their homes simply because their associations owned a particular number of houses, and I am in no doubt that it would be regarded as very unfair by the tenants concerned.
The main argument advanced against applying the right to buy to smaller associations is that sales would affect their viability. I have to say that, because management allowances are paid on a unit basis, viability—provided overheads are also in proportion to the stock—is not related to the size of the association. If, particularly where stock numbers are low, even prudent management cannot prevent a genuine revenue deficit, there are avenues through which it may seek assistance to meet that deficit.
Nor do I accept that the right to buy will pose significant administrative problems for smaller associations. Indeed, there may be some advantages in sales, albeit small, in that the net proceeds of any sale will be used first to repay any outstanding loan and housing association grant on the house; but where the sale proceeds exceed the amount required to satisfy this, the surplus will accrue to the association itself.
Finally, I doubt that the right to buy will impair the development of associations. The suggestion, which has been made in the past, that newly-formed associations seeking to build up their stocks to a reasonable level will have that objective defeated by a rush of right to buy applications is, I feel, an exaggeration—indeed, a distortion. I find it difficult to believe that a new association, operating proper allocations policies, would find within its initial tenants a high proportion of tenants both willing and able to buy.
All in all, I do not believe that the amendment would serve any purpose other than to alienate the tenants concerned. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he tell me how a smaller association with one permanent employee can cut its overheads if half of its houses are sold?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am not suggesting that a particular association with one permanent employee would have a great deal of scope for cutting its overheads. However, there are other associations with rather more, who would have scope.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, perhaps I may make a few comments. I am perhaps not surprised to hear what my noble friend has said. There was a striking lack of novelty in the remarks which he made. However, what is being put forward is an effective suggestion. The general view is that unless there are about 250 houses, the cost of management is excessive. Indeed, that is recognised in England because extra allowances are provided for the management costs of the smaller associations or societies. Therefore I should have thought that allowing the societies to have up to 250 houses was an economical way of using public money. Indeed, the noble Lord has an advantage in this respect. If any society goes above 250, they will be free to purchase. However, as it is, we are undermining to some degree the efficiency which those organisations can achieve.
The noble Lord talked about it being unfair. He talked about the right to buy. It is far more unfair not to have accommodation at all. I suggest to the noble Lord that this slightly political shout of "right to buy" is rather like the Americans saying "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", as if that were the principle upon which life existed. It is not. At present, according to figures which I think were put forward by the Government, there are about 17,000 people who are homeless. Those people are far more important than the odd person who wants to buy.
As I have said previously, home ownership is going ahead very well. I cannot be accused of not being in favour of home ownership. I have been with the building societies for some 20 years doing what I can in some way to raise the standard. Now nearly two-thirds of the population of this country own their homes. The need today is different: we need rented property, and the noble Lord knows that perfectly well. That is the real need which we must face.
I am sorry to have to say that the noble Lord has not been very kind either today or in the Bill to the work that housing associations are doing. There was no consultation at all before the Bill came forward. The noble Lord talks about abuses. Is he able to tell me now of any abuse that has taken place by a charitable organisation either in Scotland or in England? Those are deprecating words which are unfortunate.
We are not satisfied with what we have heard. We run into danger when we constantly change housing policy. Any worthwhile housing policy must operate for some 20 years or more. However, the Government come in and are obsessed with some idea. I ask the noble Lord to think very hard about this matter. This is a mild measure which could be accepted without any difficulty.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, unhappily I was unable to be present either during Second Reading or at the Committee stage of this not unimportant Bill. I must say that I came here this afternoon expecting a sympathetic, warm and more considered response to a number of amendments which have been put down, including the present amendment. I found the Minister's reply not only to the presentation of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, but also to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie a moment or two ago, profoundly unconvincing and certainly disappointing. It suggests to me, if I may say so without offence, that the Minister is unwilling to open, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, hoped he might, either his heart or his mind to this matter which is so important to the housing associations.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House may I make one or two comments on points made since I last spoke. I fully appreciate the great interest that my noble friend Lord Selkirk has always taken in housing associations. I know that on this issue he speaks from the heart. But that does not change the position. He, probably inadvertently is seeking to deprive genuine people who might wish to own their own homes of that right. This is already available to those who live in local authority houses, perhaps in the next street, and it seems to me outrageous that people in this House, of all places, should try to deprive those who seek to own their own homes of the right to do so.
I should like perhaps to correct my noble friend on one point of detail. I think he said—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that two-thirds of the people in this country own their own homes. That is certainly not the case in Scotland; I only wish that it were so. The figure is nothing approaching two-thirds. The noble Earl also made the point about small associations and deficits. If deficits occur, they can be remedied through revenue deficit grant. No association should run into trouble as a consequence of sales alone.
Perhaps I may add to what I have said already to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who asked me about how savings could be made with a small association with only one employee. It might be possible—I am not saying that it necessarily would be—that they could share staff with other associations, or use the agency services of associations. That might be a possibility.
I do not think that we are going to move very far in our views on this. People have taken up fairly entrenched positions. However, before the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, winds up I should like to say that the truth of the matter is that Ministers have been expressing concern about the operation of the voluntary code at regular intervals over a number of years. In a speech to the federation's annual conference in June 1982 my honourable friend the then Minister for Housing in Scotland expressed disappointment with the progress that had been made in implementing the voluntary code and warned the movement that it was essential for associations to adopt a positive stance in their sales policy. He subsequently discussed this matter with the federation when he met its representatives in January, 1983.
1058
No, my Lords, there are involved people who wish, and who might wish, to own their own homes, and I think it totally wrong of us in this House to try to deprive them of this privilege.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that in the autumn of 1984 the then Secretary of State stated that the voluntary code was working very well indeed?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I also remind the Minister that his indignation at our seeking to deprive people of this advantage is really somewhat synthetic, as all we are doing is proposing exceptions to the rule? The Government themselves have already allowed exceptions in the case of the charitable associations and many others where, for example, there is a contract to live in a house. All these are exceptions. We are not abrogating the principle but only making sensible exceptions.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was disappointed at the Minister's reply—he will not be surprised to hear that—when he said things such as that the selling off of houses will not impair the viability of the associations. When it is realised that we are looking at housing associations with less than 250 houses I do not think that he is right at all. I cannot believe that small associations, particularly the ones mentioned earlier—and the figures were given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, at the last stage of this Bill—such as the 30 associations with less than 50 houses would not be affected. If these houses begin to be unavailable because people buy them, obviously that will be important. But even more important than the stock of houses will be the effect on people who have given their time to set up the associations to try to save a bit of their community.
We must register our feelings in the House. We have lost the big right-to-buy argument on association houses, but we have listened to the small associations and put down these amendments. I feel that your Lordships should listen to them as well and I therefore ask for your views by putting the matter to the vote.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Amherst, E.

Chitnis, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Attlee, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Banks, L.

Denington, B.

Barnett, L.

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dundee, E.

Bottomley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

Caradon, L.

Falkland, V.

1059

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Parry, L.

Gallacher, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Galpern, L.

Perth, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Grimond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hayter, L.

Selkirk, E.

Heycock, L.

Serota, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hooson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hunt, L.

Simon, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Soper, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stedman, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kennet, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kintore, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Walston, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mar, C.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Molloy, L.

Munster, E.

Winstanley, L.

Nicol, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Alport, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Bauer, L.

Hives, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimberley, E.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McFadzean, L.

Cawley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cayzer, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cox, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cromartie, E.

Cross, V.

Melville, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V.

Mersey, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Derwent, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Digby, L.

Norrie, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

1060

Rodney, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Terrington, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Sandford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shannon, E.

Vickers, B.

Sharples, B.

Vivian, L.

Slim, V.

Westbury, L.

Soames, L.

Wynford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

Sudeley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Clause 2 [Increased discount where dwelling-house purchased is a flat]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and unless owned by a community based housing association as defined by the Housing Associations Act 1985")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it would be perhaps convenient to take Amendment No. 3. I should point out that unless I am wrong in my reading of the Bill, I think there has been a printing mistake and Amendment No. 2 should read "page 2, line 24" and not "line 20".
The amendment concerns discounts to encourage tenants to purchase these properties. I thank the Minister for giving me some of the figures he promised last time. Through no fault of his (for I know that the pressure is very great) I received them only today. I should like to make one comment on the figures. I was concerned about having the figures for flats and maisonettes with lifts and the high-rise flats. Out of the total of 78,000 houses sold up to December 1985 the number given by the Minister for flats and maisonettes that require access by lifts was only 235, which is a very tiny percentage as the Minister will agree.
I cannot accept that maisonettes with a lift are related in any way to high rise flats. There are very many relatively low rise, with two, three or four storeys, many of them built for older people, which have lifts. That proves the point that the houses that are selling are the semi-detached and the terraced houses. Out of the total of 78,000 houses, 68,000 of them are semi-detached or terraced.
My point about the housing association inner area houses is that it is really not necessary to give tenants a large discount to encourage the purchase of the older property. There is plenty of housing available in many of these areas. They have become more desirable partly because of the work of the housing associations. In some areas I know prices are higher than the prices advised by the district valuer for these houses. These are houses with vacant possession, with no discount; and there is still a very great demand for them.
There is no need to go to the length of giving for this type of house the same kind of discount that the Minister believes is necessary. I agree with him that if we decide on a policy of selling for some of our multi-storey flats, we would need to give very high discounts. I feel it is unnecessary to give these discounts, and I

1061
hope that houses and flats of more than four storeys will be exempted from the Bill; and also houses owned by housing associations, the vast mass of which are low rise, with three or four storeys if one includes the ground floor.
The Minister made a point in his speech on 28th April to which I feel I should refer. He said with some indignation, which I always like to see from him:
"I sometimes despair when I hear noble Lords on the other side talk about people who wish to buy their houses in such terms: whenever the houses are bought they are going to be allowed to get into a state of disrepair. That is what they suggest, but nothing could be further from the truth"—[Official Report, 28/4/86; col. 86.]
I really feel that if the Minister has not observed this he could not have been associated with the problems that many people find themselves faced with, especially in the inner-city areas (though it could happen anywhere), particularly concerning the tenement type of property. The housing associations are faced with many problems when people purchase houses, using just about all the capital they have. It is not wilful neglect; it is not something that they want to do. They are not saying, "We will just forget about repairs". The fact is that they are frequently greatly stretched. They may reach a point where perhaps there is illness in the family or unemployment or a reduction of earnings. Probably the worst thing of all is when people retire and suddenly find that their income has fallen. I can assure the noble Lord, from the many surgeries that I had, that terror hits people who have bought their own house and who find that in their retirement they get large bills which they just cannot cope with.
What tends to happen is that there is neglect of repairs to the fabric. The houses may look very good and people may go to a lot of trouble to make the appearance good, but sometimes they just cannot afford the kind of money that is required for fabric repairs. I was not criticising them in any way. It is just a statement of fact: this becomes too much for many people. The Minister should know that, as regards old property in Scotland, had it not been for various governments bringing forward repair grants to owner-occupiers we would now be in a very sad state. Therefore I want to clear up that point.
The Minister may think I am being unfair. I am sure that he did not mean to be unkind but he seemed to suggest that I and one or two of my noble friends were making a statement that when people bought their own houses they just ignored them and were feckless. We were saying that repairs are frequently left because the money is just not there to be used. I hope I have cleared that up and that the Minister will think very carefully about these two amendments. Though they are much the same as the amendments which were put forward last time, there is at least a new element in that the Minister was kind enough to write to me and give a little more information, part of which I have digested. I shall look at the rest of it some time later. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, may I first of all reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that of course anything I said was not in any way intended personally? I was generalising because it comes across,
1062
whether or not that is the intention, from many Labour spokesmen throughout the country that they are implying that maintenance will not be maintained in privately-owned housing to the standard which has in the past been maintained where there has been either a local authority or a housing association involvement. However, I fully accept the noble Lord's explanation and perhaps I may add that it will be open to new owners to invite the housing associations to continue to factor the block for them, if that is the wish of those who make their own purchases.
The effect of this amendment would be to deny to a particular group of tenants the same discount entitlement as is available to local authorities and other housing association tenants living in similar properties. I have again listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has had to say but I really do not think his arguments are sustainable. He has said that the majority of such flats will be tenement properties, and that is true. It may well be true that community-based housing associations own a substantial stock of those, but so also do local authorities and other associations. In Glasgow, for example, I pointed out previously, and I repeat for the benefit of your Lordships, that the district council holds some 5,500 flats in pre-1919 tenements, some 2,500 of which have been rehabilitated.
The argument that housing association flats are likely to have been recently refurbished and will therefore be more attractive to purchasers is difficult to sustain, given that the experience among local authorities has been that flats of all types have sold markedly less well than other houses. That is not so much because the tenants do not like their flats as because they are apprehensive about the associated responsibilities and costs—which the noble Lord was highlighting—such as for common repairs, which go with the purchase of a flat. There is no reason to suppose that those views will not be shared equally by housing association tenants.
However, I believe that this argument is largely irrelevant. The principle of discount is a central feature of the right to buy scheme. The basic discount reflects the fact that the house or flat is being sold with a sitting tenant; and thereafter additional discount is granted, reflecting the tenant's tenure of publicly-funded housing. To argue that tenants living in flats owned by community-based housing associations (towards 18,000 houses) should not be entitled to the same discount as other flat dwellers because their flats are likely to prove more popular, is to misunderstand totally why a discount is given in the first place.
The noble Lord's amendment also raises a problem of definition. No one has yet come up with an acceptable definition of "community-based association", and I note that the noble Lord has not attempted it today.
In the light of those considerations, I do not believe that there is any case for different discounts being applied purely on the basis of whether the activities of the landlord of a particular flat are confined to a particular community. The discount reflects the fact that the house is being sold with the sitting tenant and also the period of time over which that tenant has been contributing towards the cost of publicly-funded

1063
housing. In view of my comments, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what the Minister has said. I was rather surprised that he could not find a definition for "community-based associations"—not because I have one that I can pluck out of the air. It is one of those things that I always thought I knew what it was but may be rather like a camel—you know what it is and you can describe it but that is about all. I am sure that we could find a definition. I could have understood that there might be problems about defining what actually constitutes four-storey property; there could be problems there. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken this point.
I can thoroughly appreciate, as I said earlier, the question of large discounts for multi-storey flats. There are problems associated with them of which we are all reasonably well aware; but as regards the relatively low four in a block type, I was rather surprised at the figure that he gave. From local experience that I have, I am trying to work out the reasons why they have been slow to sell. I do not believe there is any comparison at all. Taking both ends of the scale—the three and four-storey housing association house or the old city improvement houses in parts of the central areas and the 32-storey blocks in a certain part of Glasgow or the 28-storey blocks you have in other parts of the country—I do not see any association whatever with them. However, I appreciate that it is unlikely that we would be able to get much further with the Minister on this particular amendment. Therefore I thank him for what he has said and I will with great care read the information that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 4:
After clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of restriction on security of tenure.
. In Schedule Ito the 1980 Act, paragraph 1 (tenancy not to be secure tenancy if for period exceeding 20 years) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I take Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 along with Government Amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4 and 13 repeal paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. At present paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 has the effect of providing that a tenancy shall not be a secure tenancy—and therefore the tenant does not have the right to buy—if it is for a period of more than 20 years. These amendments provide that in future tenants who have such long leases will nevertheless be secure tenants and will enjoy the other rights which go with security, including the right to buy, no matter whether they entered into their long lease before or after the date when this Bill comes into effect.
Amendment No. 12 is a saving amendment to avoid any potential conflict of statutory provisions. It provides that nothing in the Land Tenure Reform
1064
(Scotland) Act 1974 shall prevent a tenancy being a secure tenancy under the 1980 Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, but equally nothing in the 1980 Act shall prevent the granting of a decree of removing under Section 9(1) of the 1974 Act.
If I may explain in a little more detail, the reason for excluding tenancies of more than 20 years from the right to buy in 1980 was that such leases were thought to be closer to the concept in English law of leasehold purchase than to the tenancy as it is normally understood. However, this does not in itself appear to be a very strong argument for excluding such tenancies. It was thought in 1980 that there would be very few, if any, local authority tenants who held their tenancies on leases of more than 20 years and that the creation of any new tenancies on such a basis was virtually excluded by the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974. However, Section 8, when read in conjunction with Section 9 of the 1974 Act, does not wholly rule out the possibility of long leases for residential property, although these are voidable by the landlord.
Within the past few weeks it has come to our attention that Central Regional Council has been seeking to persuade its tenants, who it should be remembered do not at present have security of tenure, to enter into 21-year leases or else to buy their property at a 10 per cent. discount. The purpose is plain. It is to prevent these tenants from having security of tenure and the right to buy at full discount when this Bill comes into force.
On the face of it Section 8 of the 1974 Act, which provides that it shall be a condition of every long lease that no part of the property shall be used as a private dwellinghouse, should rule out the council offering a long lease on houses which have clearly been, and are to continue to be, residential properties. I believe therefore that the tenants affected could pursue in the courts with reasonable prospects of success an action on the grounds that the council is acting unreasonably in seeking to have them sign long leases.
These amendments demonstrate the Government's determination that regional council tenants shall have the right to buy where their houses are not essential for operational purposes at discounts equivalent to those enjoyed by other public sector tenants. The action of central region illustrates the deep-seated opposition of certain councils to the idea of selling at discount and demonstrates why the provisions of this Bill are necessary. I commend these amendments to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there is little in the Government's views on this matter to which we could honestly object, though we object to the general principle. Since we were talking earlier about definitions, may I ask whether there is a definition of what used to be called an essential worker, someone who had to have accommodation close to his work? The noble Lord may remember that on one of the earlier Scottish Bills we discussed education property in island communities, and I think we had to win a vote in order to get the accommodation of the Government, so that a house necessary for educational purposes on an island was not able to

1065
be sold. I wonder whether in this case there is a simple definition.
The Minister will no doubt be aware of the rather interesting amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has put down for consideration later. But there must be a definition somewhere of an essential local authority worker who must have a house close to his work. There is a desire on the part of most employees, who were previously always considered to have a tied house, not to have a tied house now. I rather agree with that, because I have never liked the idea of a tied house, though I accept that it is sometimes essential. I shall be very grateful if the Minister can give us the definition.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask one question? I believe that long leases are not very common in Scotland, but does my noble friend have any idea how many there are? I imagine that the number is pretty small. May I continue the point which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised? I see in one of the many useful pieces of paper which my noble friend has been good enough to send me these words:
"Any house let to an employee of the landlord as a condition of his employment".
Is that in any way undermined by the amendment, and how is a condition of employment created? Is it simply a matter of putting it into the lease? Can anybody lay down a condition? Is that condition in any way undermined by the amendment which my noble friend has moved?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House perhaps I may deal with those points. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me about the definition of essential workers. Essential workers are not defined as such, but Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act as amended by the Bill excluded many houses required for operational purposes which, in essence, is the same thing. My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked me about long leases, and he is correct in saying that they are relatively rare. Central Region, is, I believe, trying to issue long leases to between 100 and 150 tenants. My noble friend also asked me about the provision,
"as a condition of his employment".
This is not affected by the present amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Payments etc. in community-based housing associations]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(" (b) the granting of a tenancy of a dwelling to a person described in subsection (2) below who is not an employee or the close relative of an employee of the association; but only if granting of the tenancy is made under the published rules required under the Housing Associations Act 1980.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to which we and, in particular, housing associations attach considerable importance. We share the Government's concern over committee members benefiting from the very fact of their membership of an association's committee. We believe that the
1066
Government are basically correct in being concerned about this matter. The general public would he very rightly annoyed if there was any thought of queue jumping. Nobody wishes this, least of all the people in housing associations. Nevertheless, as the Bill is at present worded, there is an element of unfairness.
I should like to give an example. A close relative living outside an association's area may wish to be housed in an association house. The person mad have left that area, which was his home territory, in order to get accommodation when he married, but always wanted to return. This is very common. People frequently want to return to where they came from. It would be impossible for the person to get a house in a housing association area from an association if a relative of his was a member of the committee or had been a member of the committee less than 12 months previously. This is putting a punishing penalty on people's voluntary contribution to the associations.
5 p.m.
Conversely, a son or daughter of a committee member resident in the family home may be given a tenancy but—and this is another anomaly—if this son or daughter moved across the boundary of the immediate area, for however short a period, he or she would be barred from tenancy if their parents or close relatives were members of the committee of the association.
These restrictions apply only to housing associations. They do not apply to local authorities. I accept the fact that there are strict regulations in local authorities. I know that in my own local authority there is a special review in the case of any house given to a member of the local authority's immediate family. This is looked at by a special committee. But we have rules for the housing associations as well. We have a code of practice and a code of conduct for the housing associations. There are plenty of checks and regulations to prevent abuse where a close relative is a member of the association committee
People who get involved in housing associations put a lot of energy and enthusiasm into the work. The present proposals are deeply resented. I have had a fair amount of mail on this matter and certainly I have had representations at home. People have been working for many years in the associations. Before they began to see the fruits of their labours and gain some satisfaction from it, they worked because they wanted to do it for the area. They now find that by their participation and continued membership of the association committees they are penalising their children and close relatives. It is wrong that the children should be penalised for their public spirit.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues perhaps he will clear up a point for me. My list indicates that we are considering Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. Is that correct?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, my Lords; I am sorry. Perhaps I should have started by saying that. I am now going to deal very briefly with Amendment No. 6. This is the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie, and he will speak to that.

1067
We are talking about lay members, unpaid voluntary members of the associations. We are not speaking about employees of the associations, because they have a relationship to the associations slightly different from the lay members. Staff members are employed but they are tied to the association not by their residence but by their employment. It would perhaps be stretching things a little too much if they had the same rights as the voluntary members of the association. They do not need to live in the area, whereas in almost all cases voluntary members are in the association because they live in the area, because they want to live in the area and because they want to improve the area.
All questions of tenancy must be within the published rules of the association. The Minister is familiar with the type of energetic people who become involved in these associations. He will know that they themselves will be capable of not breaking the rules or not allowing anybody else to break the rules. If the rules are known to the public, many of them will know what is happening in confined areas and will be good watchdogs. I hope that the Minister will look at this amendment, which from the point of view of the driving force of many of these associations is very important. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, perhaps I may say frankly that I accept that Amendment No. 5 is probably slightly better than Amendment No. 6. But there are arguments on both sides and I think that the prohibition is far too strict. It does not apply in the case of local councils that own houses, so why should it apply to housing associations? I do not really know. If anything, the committee of a local housing association will be infinitely stricter in examining the claims of relatives than the people employed by a large council. The committee will know more about them, and I should say that in nearly every case an application will be scrutinised much more closely if it is from a relation of an employee or of a committee member than if there is no such connection. That is normally the way it works with a voluntary association.
Many ludicrous examples have been given to us. We have a nice one here about a housing association which employed a relief warden in Corstorphine. The mother-in-law lived in Forfar and applied for a place in a sheltered housing scheme run by the same housing association. She was a native of Forfar and there was no other suitable sheltered housing. As her surname was different from that of her daughter-in-law it was by accident that the relationship was discovered. Under this legislation she could not get a place. There are many other rather ludicrous examples of the same kind of thing.
I have another example which is particularly applicable to both these amendments. A person who would have been quite excellent on a committee was asked to join it but refused because her parents had had their name down for a house with the association for many years. If she joined the committee they would be debarred from obtaining a house. It is quite possible, particularly with regard to housing associations, to devise any number of safeguards
1068
against the form of corruption of which I know we have had examples in council housing in Scotland and elsewhere. It is much less likely in a housing association. To quote the Minister's own argument, how appalling it is that we should deny the relations of voluntary workers the same privilege that we do not deny to the relations of councillors. It is quite illogical. I have much pleasure in supporting Amendment No. 5 and in recommending Amendment No. 6.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I think that there is someone in the Scottish Office who has a gift for insulting housing associations. People have written to me and said that they are greatly insulted by the words of this clause. I really do not see why it is necessary. It is common knowledge—I think my noble friend knows it—that members of a committee have resigned because if they did not do so some relative of theirs could not get a house.
As I understand it, at the present time virtually all housing associations have long lists of applicants. Most of the housing associations have closed their lists because they cannot take any more. The applicants are examined closely. They are given points. Those arrangements are approved by the housing associations, which also approve the rules by which people are allowed into houses. I really do not see why this kind of regulation should be laid down by statute.
It is not for me to encourage the Scottish Office to make regulations. I have expressed my view frequently on that subject on other occasions. Surely this is a case of a code being required that can be reasonably altered to fit the circumstances. For example, I may ask what is meant by a "close relative"; at what point does a cousin become a close relative? Is it when he is once removed, or twice removed? It is a phrase that I can see being discussed at great length in the High Court in Scotland. I do not know any legal definition of that phrase.
Frankly, I would like to see Clause 13 right out of the Bill. I do not disapprove of what the noble Lord has said. I would like to see that clause replaced by a code that can be adjusted and—something that a statute cannot be—a code of honour. A code of honour is something that cannot be put into a statute. I should like to see this clause taken right out of the Bill and replaced by a provision, in simpler language, that will be applicable to the situation.
I readily understand the desire of the Scottish Office that there should be no hanky-panky. Incidentally, has there been any abuse? Has any abuse been reported? Everything goes to the Housing Corporation and such a report could be available to the noble Lord so that he would know. So far as I know, there has been no abuse whatsoever during the last 10 or 20 years during which such organisations have been in operation. Clause 13 has been of great annoyance to many people. It is unnecessary, and I believe that the matter could be very much more easily placed within a code that stated precisely what is wanted.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the allocation of publicly-funded housing is an area that is wide open to

1069]
accusations—justified or otherwise—of injustice and preferential treatment, whether the authority concerned is a housing association or another housing body. Housing associations are particularly susceptible to such accusations, since there is a connection between the authority granting the tenancy and the individual receiving it. The allocation of tenancies was one of the factors that persuaded the Government to introduce in 1980 the restrictions now contained in Section 15 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.
Those restrictions preclude a housing association from granting any payment (other than those specified in Section 15(2)) or any benefit to a person who is a committee member, officer or employee, or has held such a position within the preceding 12 months, or to the close relatives of such persons. They are designed to ensure that decisions on the use of public funds are taken in a fair and proper manner and that there is no question—real or implied—of a conflict of interest for officers and committee members. The practices that led to the introduction of those restrictions were not universal and they had little impact in Scotland; but there was sufficient evidence of abuse and uncertainty to justify the action taken.
The measures introduced in 1980 were correct, justified and have worked well but Ministers were persuaded that they posed particular problems for community-based housing associations in Scotland. Those stem from the way in which committee members of such associations and their relatives live, more often than not, in the area in which the association works. That means that the development programmes of those associations almost inevitably come to have a direct effect on the houses of committee members and their relatives. Clause 13 seeks to reduce the restrictions by permitting associations to acquire houses from those people in the course of rehabilitation projects and to grant tenancies to them. Those are the two areas where the problems are particularly acute and where they differ materially from those experienced by housing associations generally.
I will have something to say about the detail of the noble Lord's amendment in a moment, but it would enable community-based housing associations to grant tenancies to committee members, officers and their relatives who were not currently resident in the area. While that would undoubtedly facilitate the return of such people to the community from which they might have moved—or been obliged to move—some time ago, I have to say that I see this as a distinctly different category of allocation from those provided for in paragraph (b) of the new Clause 15A. The same arguments about the direct effect of the development programme on their homes do not apply and, without that distinction, they are not in a materially different position from the committee members of any other housing association. There is certainly no operational need or difficulty related to equity here.
5.15 p.m.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, to which the noble Lord spoke, is very similar and perhaps I may comment upon it. Section 15 of the
1070
Housing Associations Act 1985 (formerly Schedule 16 to the Housing Act 1980) precludes a housing association from granting any payment, other than those specified, or any benefit to a person who is a committee member, officer or employee, or has held such a position within the preceding 12 months. The bar extends to close relatives of such persons and businesses in which such persons have a personal interest. That restriction was introduced in 1980 as a result of indications of abuse (albeit not in Scotland) of the more relaxed arrangements then applying and as a safeguard against the possibility of similar occurrences in the future.
Ministers have recognised for some time that the current legislation affects community-based housing associations particularly because of the congruence of the area of operation of such associations with the area of residence of the bulk of the management committee and voluntary officers. The renovation programmes of such associations will therefore touch on the interests of their committee members, voluntary officers, or their relatives who are resident in houses which may be affected by the programme. In that situation there is a clear need, on grounds of equity, for the association to be able to buy a house from, and offer a tenancy to, those people when their existing houses are directly affected. Clause 13 of the Bill gives associations that ability and makes allowance for people who have moved out of the area recently, or on a temporary basis.
I recognise that there will be occasions when voluntary officers and committee members of housing associations and their close relatives feel that they are disadvantaged in comparison with members of the general public on account of those provisions. But housing associations, in common with all organisations which receive substantial sums of public funds, must be seen to be fully accountable for their actions and be above any suspicion.
I cannot accept the amendment proposed by, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, since I believe that the sensible controls introduced in 1980 would be seriously eroded by it. I believe that Clause 13 deals with the two distinct problems facing community-based housing associations, which are unique to them, in a way that they will welcome. The fact that the legislation takes precautions against abuse does not of course, carry any implications, whatsoever that abuse is taking place. I make that absolutely clear. Indeed, I wish to reaffirm the Government's confidence in and, indeed, gratitude to all those who work for the betterment of Scottish housing through voluntary effort.
I return to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. The amendment could not be accepted even if I was of a mind to do so, because in its present form it is technically flawed. The new sub-paragraph (b) that is seeks to substitute in place of the existing terms of the proposed Section 15(A)(1)(b) of the 1985 Act, begins in line 37 of the Bill and not in line 27 as stated in the amendment. More importantly, it is the Tenants' Rights, Etc (Scotland) Act 1980, not the Housing Associations Act 1980, that requires housing associations to publish the rules that they adopt in considering the admission of applicants to housing lists, priority of allocation of dwellinghouses, transfer

1071
of tenants to houses owned by other bodies, and exchanges of houses. Moreover, the Housing Associations Act was enacted by Parliament in 1985 and not in 1980. I know that the noble Lord will realise that I am not nit picking or trying to be difficult, and acknowledge that such a flaw is not something that could be accepted.
One or two quick points were made which I shall now deal with. My noble friend Lord Selkirk spoke about a code. There has been abuse in England. A code would not provide a sufficient safeguard for public funds, nor real accountability. We take the view—and, on reflection, I do not think my noble friend will disagree—that it is essential that people who are engaging voluntarily in these activities should be protected. What we are seeking to do we see as a protection much more than as a special discipline for the effect suggested.
My noble friend also asked about the definition of "close relative". There is no statutory definition. Such a definition would perhaps create as many uncertainties and anamolies as it would resolve, but I do not believe any of us need to think very long or hard to define "close relatives" within our own minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that restrictions do not apply to local authorities. As the noble Lord said, local authorities have very strict rules to prevent abuse. In addition, local authority members are accountable directly to the electorate.
In view of the defects in Amendment No. 5 and for the reasons I have outlined regarding Amendment No. 6, perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and particularly for pointing out my mistake in the wording of the amendment. I shall certainly look at that with great care. Obviously it is not an amendment that could be accepted in its present form, but I give notice to the Minister that I shall pursue the matter.
I can see the Minister's problem. He is definitely trying to be honest about how houses are allocated. I am not being personal, but it seems to go back to the fact that we do not trust too much people who are in housing. All of us who have had experience know that the temptations of being able to help people—close relatives or whoever—are very great. With local authorities there have been all sorts of wild accusations in that regard, but considering the thousands and thousands of local authority houses let over the past 20 years it is remarkable how few dishonesties have been brought to light, or which have actually occurred.
I am very much persuaded by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the question of a code of practice. I hope the Minister will pay a great deal of attention to that proposal. This provision is causing offence among many people in the housing associations. I have had a number of letters from people who are giving up this work, as have other noble Lords. We must have better objective criteria than at present we have been told about, and a code of practice might provide that. For instance, in many cases people have friends to whom they are much closer than they are to their so-
1072
called—by any definition—close relatives. I am sure this applies to all of us. I seldom see some of my close relatives and no doubt keep a good relationship with them because of that. There is a temptation with very close friends; and therefore we must provide something which is objective. It is quite wrong, with all the wit of the Minister and his colleagues in the Scottish Office, that we cannot provide some sort of code of practice that will help to get over this sticky problem. It is a human problem, not a political one.
I hope that the Minister will take seriously what has been said in this debate. For the sake of the people who approach me, I shall find it impossible to allow this to go through without at least registering a protest on Third Reading if the Minister is not able to offer us something.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I should like to be quite certain of what I heard my noble friend say: that there is no report of abuse in the housing associations in Scotland. Can I be quite clear that that is what my noble friend said?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, my Lords; I indicated to my noble friend that there had been abuse in England but that there had not been abuse in Scotland. My noble friend heard me correctly.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.
. There shall be appointed by the Secretary of State a committee to advise him on Scottish housing. The committee to be known as the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee shall consider the problems related to housing in Scotland and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. The subjects studied and reported on shall be at the request or with the approval of the Secretary of State. Its reports shall be made to the Secretary of State and shall be published.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee and withdrawn because of pressure of time. The idea behind it is that we do not seem to be very good in Scotland—and this goes across the party spectrum—at anticipating housing needs and planning far enough ahead in a coherent way for housing problems. We tend perhaps to be a little airy-fairy and put the right solutions in the back of an envelope when in opposition—this applies to both sides—and do not think them out as well as we ought to.
The amendment, therefore, takes the opportunity of this Bill to propose that a group of people, who will have varied experience, be set up as the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. I am not speaking of a highly paid group of experts, a quango, sitting permanently. I am talking about a group of part-time

1073
people—perhaps with a small secretariat—who would be able to assist the Secretary of State to look at housing across the whole spectrum in Scotland.
This would be an outside advisory body, not tied to the Scottish Office or to the Scottish Home and Health Department, taking the long view on demographic, economic and other tendencies of the population of Scotland generally. It would look at housing stock and at the future of housing stock, its state of repair, age, value of refurbishment, and all such factors. The group would be working for the Secretary of State either at high pressure or, at other times, perhaps at a slightly more leisurely pace.
The proposal is based to some extent on the debt we owe to the Cullingworth report from which so much of our housing thinking has come. The Cullingworth report was produced in 1967, which is nearly 20 years ago. The Minister, who has been very closely involved in these matters for a long time now, will no doubt pay tribute to the work of Cullingworth and will realise that many of the things we are doing in housing now is due to Cullingworth. I notice from my copy of the Cullingworth report how far back it goes. It cost 10s. 6d. in 1967, which is a long time ago. We are still using it fundamentally. It was this report which sparked us off. We should consider whether we need another Cullingworth report.
I suggest that the Minister should take away this amendment and consider the possibility of setting up a small Scottish housing advisory committee to look at the problem in a general way, and also recommend to the Secretary of State that a more powerful and a deeper study of Scottish housing problems should be made. This proposal is made in a non-party spirit. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like very much to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I realise that in their election manifesto the Government at one stage promised the abolition of quangos, or at least a reduction, and they have had some success in that regard. However, some quangos are of great value. They enable the Government to tap the knowledge and resources of people who would not normally be elected by the political processes of local authority elections.
I regard the housing problem of Scotland as of such significance that the Government would do well to call on the knowledge and experience that is available in this field, and which is concerned to offer them advice. There are plenty of precedents. For example, the Government obtain valuable advice from the Economic Committee. Some of us were members of that committee some years ago when we helped to guide the Secretary of State for Scotland—or at least offered advice to him—on Scotland's economic problems.
The housing problem is a very important one, as the Minister well knows, and involves the whole problem of urban renewal. The fact is that the Scottish housing scene is now entirely different from what it was, say, 20 or 30 years ago when there was a sharp division between those on one side of the political fence who
1074
were all in favour of building local authority housing, and those on the other side who preferred the extension of private ownership of housing. For example, as a result of the examination of this Bill, the great variety of different systems used in running housing estates has become apparent. We see that there are housing associations and that many local authority estates are now divided between private ownership and local authority rented property. I think that developing a sensible and worthwhile housing policy can make some contribution to Scotland's welfare.
I must say that following the local authority elections last week I doubt whether there is any one local authority in Scotland on which the Government have a majority. There may be a small one which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, may know about, but I suspect that the entire body of local authority representatives is opposed to the Government. When such a thing happens, entrenched attitudes for and against the Government tend to develop in politics.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that this matter should be taken out of the area of political confrontation. He suggested that we should look at this great social problem of urban renewal and the deterioration of the housing stock in cities such as Glasgow with the benefit of a housing advisory committee If I were the Secretary of State for Scotland I should welcome very much my ability to call on the experience of some people who are not involved in the day-to-day conflict of local authority versus government politics. I very much support this amendment and I hope that it finds acceptance in the same spirit with which it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord has said. If we look back 65 years to when for the first time the Government of this country began to make themselves responsible for housing, I think we should not regard this programme as very successful. I think that most of us would be disappointed that during the whole of that period we were not more successful in clearing out the debris from the centre of our cities.
What is the reason for that? It was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. When any party is in opposition it thinks about housing and devises a plan. Sometimes it is a wild plan and sometimes it is a good plan. However, the point is that if a housing plan is changed every four or five years it will never work properly. A housing plan must work for a steady 20 years before one can say whether it is good or bad. I believe that something such as is now proposed, a continuing body that reviews housing (which is inevitably intensely political) over a wider and broader atmosphere would be of enormous help to the Secretary of State and would be of exceptional help to this country in keeping the essentials straight. I shall say a little more about this subject presently, but I believe that this suggestion should not be turned down lightheartedly. I am given to understand that there was a housing advisory council until about 1980, though I am not quite sure. I think that this proposal should not be thrown aside as just offering a wild quango. There is room here for a broad non-political policy which could he of lasting benefit to this country.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I should like to support this idea but I would point out that it sometimes takes five or six years to put in the services required for houses. Wild ideas about building houses here, there and everywhere are very apt to come out, but this pays no regard to the services and the cost of putting in those services, which is a very great fraction of the total cost. I think that this is an excellent idea but that services should very definitely be considered.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I am afraid that I do not find his arguments convincing. When noble Lords have heard what I have to say I think that they will agree with me. I also listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who is certainly not without experience in these matters, and again I think that some of the points he made are worth commenting upon. I shall do so in a moment or two.
The Housing (Scotland) Acts between 1935 and 1980 required the Secretary of State to appoint a committee such as is suggested here. Section 75 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980—my noble friend is perfectly correct—abolished the requirement in Section 167 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. What is proposed in the new clause that is before us would more or less take us back to the position before 1980.
I accept that the new clause proposed would leave to the Secretary of State the decision on what the new committee would study, and thus the new body's powers would be less wide than those of its predecessor. This restriction, however, to some extent highlights, I believe, why a reactivated Scottish housing advisory committee is unnecessary. The Secretary of State can, and indeed does, take steps to seek advice on current topics of housing interest without the need for a statutory committee and the administrative back-up which this requires.
Let us look for a moment at what happened in the 1970s. The then committee met very infrequently indeed during that decade, under both Conservative and Labour administration. Indeed, for a time between July 1977 and March 1978 the membership term of members of the committee had expired, and the then Labour Government had not seen fit to make new appointments. So during that period the committee could not meet. Moreover, much of the best output of the committee in its pre-1980 incarnation was the production of reports on current issues. Those reports emanated largely from subcommittees set up for the purpose which consisted largely of co-opted members. They were therefore virtually ad hoc committees.
In 1980 the Government took the view that the sensible way to deal with pressing problems of public importance was to set up ad hoc inquiries, and that remains their view. I believe that the arguments deployed then are at least as strong now. Since 1980 we have seen the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs look at housing (for example, condensation and dampness), and if there was felt to be a need for it to study other housing problems, it could of course do so. Furthermore, since 1980 the system of consultations between the Secretary of State and CoSLA has greatly
1076
developed. The Minister for local government and the environment meets CoSLA's housing committee twice annually, primarily to discuss housing support grant matters. However, these discussions traditionally extend much more widely into any aspect of housing which the convention wishes to cover. The Secretary of State is therefore kept very closely in touch with the views of local authorities and the issues of the day generally.
We do not need an additional quango and its attendant bureaucracy. We do not need to have a statutory body advise the Secretary of State. There are many and varied sources of advice available to Ministers. If there are gaps, ad hoc committees can be formed. It is better, however, to disband these committees when their work is complete, rather than to have a standing body.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke about anticipation of housing needs and problems and the housing plan system under which local authorities, in consultation with other organisations like the Scottish Special Housing Association, set out their priorities for housing provision at regular four-yearly intervals. I believe that that is an effective means to anticipate housing needs and problems. I do not believe that we need a seperate committee—an extra structure—on top of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor Gryfe, spoke of the wide range of expertise that could be brought in to advise the Secretary of State on housing policy. I do not disagree with that, but that wide range of expertise is there anyway. Indeed, there was the distinguished membership of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee prior to 1980, but, as I outlined a little earlier, although it was distinguished, it was not active.
I accept the suggestion in the spirit in which it is made; it is purely non-political. But I do not think that it would be an improvement on what is available to the Secretary of State at the moment, particularly with the Select Committee system that we have in operation which has the power to look at pretty well anything that it wants within Scotland and with the facility for ad hoc committees to be set up from time to time for various purposes. I think that the position is well taken care of, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will realise that I am a little disappointed with his reply. He said that the Secretary of State had plenty of expertise to help him look at current problems. We are not desperately concerned about that. We know that there is plenty of expertise to look at current problems, but frequently a solution is found that is neither long term nor lasting, nor even at the end of the day economic. The matters that concern me are, for instance, the replacement of about 16,000 houses a year in order just to stand still, let alone build for new stock.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, took up the point that I made about the quick work done by one political party, with a change of plans by the next. He said that housing was a highly political subject and we cannot put an end to that. By and large, I suggest that it is the money aspect that is highly political. There is plenty of scope for a purely technical and sociological

1077
consideration of the massive housing problems. Whatever government happen to be in power could then decide their priorities within the plan. That is not a perfect solution, and there would be ragged edges, but that is roughly the way that I see it.
I was not calling for a permanent quango with a large staff. I suggested a much smaller group. After a preliminary or pilot scheme to look at the long-term prospect for Scotland and Scottish housing, the Secretary of State may think that deeper consideration of the housing problem and the way to give people decent accommodation is required. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I hope that this is the beginning of a long struggle to set up an organisation to establish long-term future planning for Scottish housing. I should be only too pleased to participate in the struggle towards a more rational look at housing policy. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of local authorities with respect to persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
Amendment to Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) it does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence and it is inappropriate for his needs, or it is unreasonable for him to continue to live in it".
(3) In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7) Where a local authority has a duty under (4) and (5) above either to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available or to secure that accommodation becomes available for the applicant 'accommodation' shall be defined as a separate dwelling house that shall conform to section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974."
(4) In section 21 (citation and extent) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5) Sections 1(2)(d) and 4(7) shall extend only to Scotland."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. This matter was brought to our attention by Shelter in Scotland. We are trying by this amendment to put right in Scotland at least an extraordinary situation that has arisen by a legal judgment of your Lordships' House. It has given the word "accommodation" a definition which apparently means accommodation and little else. That has done a great deal of damage to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, although the judgment was given no doubt absolutely correctly. We should like to insert a new clause so that in Scotland the Act can operate as it did before that decision.
I must say a little about the decision. The Puhlhofer family and their two children lived at a guesthouse in one room which contained a single bed, a double bed, a baby's cradle, a dressing table, a pram and a sterilising unit. There were no cooking or washing
1078
facilities in the room, and the three bathrooms in the guesthouse were shared by 36 people. The Puhlhofers had to eat out and to wash their clothes in a launderette, and it all had to be paid for from £78 per week state benefit.
The judgment, which was supported by all the noble and learned Lords who were sitting, stated that that was accommodation and that the local authority had no need to rehouse or otherwise assist the family. "Accommodation" needs to be defined rather more widely in the Act. In Scotland we have an opportunity to put that right. The judgment states:
"it might in certain circumstances be unfit for human habitation for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act 1957 or might involve overcrowding within the meaning of Part IV".
A legal definition has been given that makes nonsense of the Act that was passed in 1977 for the benefit of homeless people.
I do not think that I need say much more at this time as a number of other noble Lords will speak on the matter. This is a chance at least in Scotland to put right a terrible anomaly. Apparently accommodation even worse than that described would not make people homeless. I am sure that in common sense sour Lordships will agree that a change in the law is necessary. We have a chance to do that here. I hope that the Minister will give us a proper reply, as he may be becoming more reasonable. I am sure that he will want to make up for his terrible Freudian slip when he asked the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to withdraw his—that is, the noble Lord the Minister's—amendment. This would be a suitable chance for urn to make up for that. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. The case in question arose from proceedings by way of judicial review of a decision of the Hillingdon Council. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has described the conditions in the accommodation that was provided for the family of four. They had one room. Unfortunately, we are not told the size of the room. Their sole provision was a double bed for the husband and wife, a single bed for the four-year old baby, and a baby's cradle. The remainder of the provisions were a dressing table, a pram and a steriliser unit. The family had no cooking or washing facilities, as the facts show. There were three bathrooms in the guest house which accommodated 36 people. The conditions were of the utmost squalor, and inevitably so. The family had to eat out and use the launderette for their washing. The expense of doing those things absorbed their state benefit of £78 a week.
The noble and learned Lords who determined the case had of course to interpret the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 as they found it. It was not accommodation in any real, acceptable sense of modern living conditions. "Accommodation" is not defined in the Act and now is the opportunity for the House to put the matter right by attempting a definition of "homelessness' which would enable a family to apply for accommodation and would impose an obligation upon the local authority to treat it as homeless and place the local authority under an obligation to find accommodation.

1079
What is proposed in the amendment is that there should be inserted in the definition of "homelessness" the words that the accommodation:
"does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence and it is inappropriate for his needs, or it is unreasonable for him to continue to live in it."
If those tests were applied to the facts of the case, I submit that a court would inevitably say that that was a homeless family which should have proper provision made for it. Parliament now has an opportunity to put the law right in that regard.
The Law Lords have to apply the law as they find it. They unanimously found and came to the conclusion that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackie—he sounded so learned in his discourse that the compliment fell easily from my lips—described. The Law Lords came to the conclusion that in the interpretation of the language of the Act, that family could not be described as homeless within the meaning of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act or be entitled to look to a local authority for accommodation. If that decision were applied generally it would be a mask for a great deal of genuine, hopeless homelessness. I think therefore that this is a good opportunity to put the matter right.
I do not know where the matter stood in another place. The eminent and highly reputable newspaper the Scotsman reports:
"The Scottish Housing Minister, Mr. Michael Ancram, is considering the impact of this ruling and deciding whether or not he should amend the homeless persons Act in such a way as to restore its original intentions."
We take hope from that observation that the sympathetic heart and mind of the noble Lord the Minister will move in a similar direction and reform the law to make it more suitable and civilised for the homeless persons of Scotland so that they too may receive proper shelter and accommodation.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, used all his powers of persuasion, even to the extent of suggesting that I make good an earlier error and accept this amendment, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, also used all his legal techniques to try and persuade me. I can tell noble Lords that I am not beyond being persuaded on this issue which is causing a great deal of anxiety to many people.
The new clause seeks to amend the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to take account of the alleged implications of the Law Lords' recent judgment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, commented on the matter. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in his judgment did not say that any accommodation would be adequate to render the applicant outside the scope of the Housing (Homeless Pesons) Act. As I recall it, he said that the accommodation would have to be capable of accommodating. There is still an element of discretion to be exercised by the local authority. I do not want noble Lords to think that I am nit-picking, because this is an important matter, but where we are suggesting a change in the law I know that your Lordships would be as anxious as I am that we get it right.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the mere physical capacity to accommodate those four people—a room in which they could all be contained—we submit is not a proper test of whether it is a home and prevents them from being called homeless. That is the snag.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, yes, I take the point which the noble and learned Lord made. As noble Lords may be aware, the matter was raised when the Bill had its Report stage in another place early in March. It is also a matter which I understand is of some concern to Shelter which has been in correspondence with us on the point. When the matter was raised with us two months ago, we indicated that we wished to take it away for further consideration and advice. In the interim, we have been looking closely at the implications of the judgment and we shall be writing shortly to Shelter to let it know of our conclusions.
Having considered the implications of the judgment carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it would be premature to consider the possibility of amendments to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act unless and until it is demonstrated that local authorities are taking a different approach to the discharge of their responsibilities to homeless people. Accordingly, we shall monitor the position through the regular quarterly statistics and other information that comes to hand. We should, of course, welcome any supplementary evidence which Shelter or any other voluntary body may care to submit to us.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has had an opportunity to consult the local authorities about his proposal. If he has, it may be interesting to hear their views. Having said that, I have also to deal with the technical difficulty of the amendment. Indeed, I believe that it would achieve quite the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord has in mind. This is because the amendment says that,
" 'accommodation' shall be defined as a separate dwelling house that shall conform to section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966".
However, Section 89 of the 1966 Act defines a house that is overcrowded. The amendment is therefore saying that the accommodation shall be overcrowded. Presumably, what is intended is that the accommodation should not be overcrowded as defined in Section 89. But this is not what the amendment says. The noble Lord will appreciate that it would be wrong for me to encourage him to move forward with it. In the circumstances, particularly with regard to the technical defects of the amendment, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to withdraw it. Your Lordships will probably wish to consider the matter a little further. All of us, I believe, seek to move forward in the best possible way here. Certainly our advice at the moment is that we should go with care.
6 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I can certainly understand the Minister's problem here. I am, of course, aware, too, of the other problems that have been faced by local authorities since the Act was originally put on the statute book. This case has shown a gross mistake in the Act. There is no question of the Law Lords doing other than what was absolutely

1081
correct from the point of view of the sheer definition of accommodation. However, the decision in this case has been much tighter than anyone has envisaged. According to the papers that I have before me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, before appeal, took much the same view—what I would perhaps call the commonsense view taken by the rest of us.
It was arising from the gross anomaly that appeared following the highest legal interpretation of the Act that this amendment was put down. I accept that it will not meet the Minister's needs. Having also read what was stated by Mr. Ancram in another place, I realise that it must be withdrawn, although that is not my job. The amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. We are therefore aware of the problem. Nevertheless, we are now at the Report stage in the House of Lords. This matter first appeared at the Committee stage in the House of Commons. It has been pushed back and forth since then. We want reassurance that some action will be seen either at Third Reading or in another place when the Bill goes back there for consideration of the amendments that we have made.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I found a little discouraging my noble friend's remarks about monitoring by the local authorities. This could seem to take us into the far distance. I was hoping, having heard the facts of what seems to be an extremely strong case for the amendment, that my noble friend would be able to go as far as saying that his ministerial colleagues would come to a conclusion before the Bill has its Third Reading.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am extremely disappointed in the Minister. I shall not mince my words. It is scandalous, when the evidence is clear and following the feeling expressed in the House, that he should not promise to consider the arguments and to bring forward an amendment that is technically correct. Here we have a case in which a local authority has already gone to the House of Lords and has taken advantage to appeal when it is obvious to everyone in the House that there is gross overcrowding and that the accommodation is grossly unfit for a family to live in. For the Minister to say that he wants to test it further shows an insensitivity that I did not think him capable of. I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. There will, I trust, be two amendments put forward at Third Reading. Certainly there will be one from myself and my noble friends on this side. I hope and trust that the Government will also have the good sense to put one forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9 of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I have to point out to your Lordships that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 10.
Schedule 1 [Amendment 1980 Act]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 21, line 51, leave out from beginning to end of line i2 on page 22 and insert—

("(i) the rules of the landlord, registered in teens of sections 9 or 10 (registration of rules) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, are such as would admit of a claim for, and a grant of, exemption from tax under section 360(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (special exemptions for charities); and

(ii) such exemption has been granted (whether or not retrospectively) and is in force; or")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this very obscure Bill and this even more obscure schedule a fundamental change is sought to be brought out. It seeks to say that at no time in the future will it he practical to form a charitable housing association in Scotland. The reason is simple. If such a charitable association were formed, it would be compelled under the Bill to sell at a discount. I shall read from an Inland Revenue letter about what happens when you sell at discount. This is a communication following a society's request for advice about its charitable position. As there are no charity commissioners in Scotland, direct contact has to be made with the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue claims branch states:
"In response to the two points raised by you, the Inland Revenue Department would have no objection to such sales so long as the sales are at not less than market value".
This means that if any charity accepts a sale at discount, it ceases to be a charity. As, under the Bill, they have an obligation to do so, this means that if they refused to sell, they would be hauled before the court and made to sell. The effect, hidden in a distant schedule that should, to my mind, have formed a major part of the Bill, is that no future housing charity will be formed in Scotland. This is a serious matter. No one will make a private donation to anything except a charity. This is therefore cutting off any sort of assistance from the outside.
I was struck by the opening words of my noble friend on Second Reading that the Bill contains no new principle. Has the noble Lord never studied how the Housing Corporation started? It was way back in 1961, with a further development in 1964, until it finally became a big organisation in 1974. It was clearly laid down that the aim was houses and hostels to let. What are the Government doing? They are arranging to sell these properties—the very opposite to the purpose for which the Housing Corporation was formed. It represents a complete turn round of policy. It is the sort of situation—I say this with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—in which an advisory council would say, "You cannot turn housing policies upside down and expect nothing to happen". This is breaking the basis on which the policy was established. Noble Lords may recall the words spoken by Mr. Crosland—that it was intolerable that the country should only have a choice between owner occupation and council houses. What has happened? The noble Lord replies that we spent £600 million on the corporation last year. He did not mention that this was across Great Britain, not just Scotland.
We are building the equivalent in Scotland of about 3,000 houses a year. In an answer given to me by the

1083
noble Lord, Lord Elton, it was said that since 1979 we had lost 400,000 houses to let. If you built 3,000 houses for 130 years you would get to something like 400,000. The purpose of this Bill has been completely twisted. The Government have tried to make one thing matter—the right to buy. We must recognise that it is the better-off people who can buy and that there are many who can never even hope or look to buy. They are the people who need our attention above all else. Anyone who has seen a housing association at work knows the quality of the work. The associations have done things, for instance in tenement houses in Scotland, which the local authorities have failed to do and could not do. But the housing associations did them on a smaller scale with the utmost success and they should remain able to do them.
I was at Leith last weekend, talking to one of the household managers. He knows quite a bit about it. He said, "I am staggered at the number of people who want rented property". That is the position. Their numbers are enormous; and they will not be able to buy. That is why I object to selling houses which were originally built and intended, under the housing corporation, for rented property.
He went on to say something else which I thought was strange. He said: "Those who own flats come to me and say, 'Will you please buy them? We'd rather be renting property. We can't afford the charge'." We must face the fact that there is an increasing number of people who are unable to face the mortgage charge. That is a regrettable feature, because 20 years ago the number of people who failed to pay the charge was statistically unpresentable due to the fact that it was so small. It has grown recently, To my mind, it is not wise or proper to offer too much encouragement to people to take on too heavy a burden.
There is another matter. What about the racket? I wonder whether your Lordships realise what is offered by the Government. You build a house, you put in a tenant for a preliminary period of two years; he then buys the house at half price. He lives there for three years and then probably sells it at three times the price that he gave for it. People who are more interested in money than in houses already have cottoned on to this system. They are starting already. I have been told of four or five instances where this has already happened.
There is no queue waiting to buy houses. You can get a mortgage straightaway today. Of course you have to pay the full amount; I quite agree. But queues exist, so far as I know, in every housing association in Scotland. At every one there are 50, 100 or perhaps 1,000 waiting to come in. That is what they want; that is what the country wants. If I may say so, that is really the popular thing that the Government should do. Popularity is not something to be ignored entirely; and it would be quite wrong to do so. I ask for a very small item. I am not asking the Government to change their whole policy, but let us please keep the charitable houses as such—the houses which deal with charitable purposes and which are accepted by the Inland Revenue as charitable. Let those people buy who really want to buy—and there are many. I do not want to discourage them. They can get houses without difficulty. But do not let them take houses away from
1084
the number which are specially required for people for rent.
There is one statement about which I must reproach the noble Lord. He said that charity is a device to avoid selling. Please let us hear the noble Lord repudiate that statement. It was not his fault; it was no doubt part of the brief that was given to him somewhere in the depths of the Scottish Office. But it is a wicked statement which should never have been made. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like briefly to say something on this point. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has made a powerful case. The point he made that worried me most was that if charities were selling off their houses, if they were forced to do so because they were being asked by the tenants, there would be no incentive for anyone thereafter to buy blocks or build blocks for charities. One housing charity—I do not know the status of it but I have some association with it—is Christian Action. It has a very special kind of use for its houses. It is not just a case of trying to solve someone's housing problem. It uses its houses to try to solve a much wider problem than just the housing problem—a much wider family problem. Its houses, I should think, are really worth much more to it than they are to any one individual family.
I think that the Government must look very carefully at the whole question of charitable status—obviously at a charity such as Christian Action which is already established but also at any new group that may come along; perhaps a specific group dealing with alcoholics or with another form of the Link project. They would not be able to do it because they would not have the status and certainly they would not raise the money if people thought they were going to recondition property which, in a couple of years, would be bought by whoever was put into it. I hope that the Minister has a good answer to this problem. I think that we are all grateful at least for his extension to November 1985 in Amendment No. 10. It is a good effort but it is not really quite enough. We want something a little more permanent than that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think that the logic of this amendment is inescapable. Nobody really can foresee the future so far and so clearly as to say that there will not arise a cast-iron case for a charity to deal with a hundred different kinds of needs in housing. Certainly no charity could possibly embark on their schemes if they knew that these houses would be bought under this Act by the tenants after a certain time. I think the logic is there. The Government have given way; and when I say they have given way I mean that they have very sensibly taken it up to 1985. The charity can be examined with great care and I think it is absolutely logical that you cannot prevent a charity from doing good in the future in the housing field.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said the Government have given way. I am afraid that I cannot go along with that. I support wholly the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has given for his amendment. I recall that at

1085
the Committee stage I moved an amendment asking that the date be removed because it seemed to me that to withdraw the right of any philanthropist in the future to help set up a charitable housing association was something which was totally wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, the Minister, speaking in Committee—and I refer to col. 114 of the Official Report of 28th April last—said:
"To make such a broad exemption"—
that is, for charitable housing—
"would open the way to what would be no more than a device to avoid the right-to-buy provisions".
I find that that remark is really one that should not be made. It is allowed to England and Wales but not to Scotland. Is the noble Lord seriously saying that we will cheat but that the English and the Welsh will not? I find that this is something which should not be said by a Minister. After all, he is a Minister—often a very good one—for Scottish affairs. At the same time, he went on to say that it is all right if there are special needs. It will extend very substantially to those charitable associations that would be eligible; but not to all of them. The noble Lord admits that any new charitable association in Scotland would lose its charitable tax status if the stock was eligible for the right to buy. This is a tragic example of going halfway to meet what we want. I very much hope that the House will go along with the noble Earl and his amendment.
I am not sure whether I should bring personal considerations into the matter, but I came down from Scotland this afternoon for this one purpose; for this one amendment. It happens that today is also my birthday. If the amendment is accepted, I shall have had the best birthday present possible!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that we require an explanation from him about why the Government are arguing that, whereas tenants should have the same rights in Scotland as they do in England to buy their houses, it should be less possible in Scotland to set up a charitable housing association than it is in England. Why should we be denied that right just because the definition of a charity and the way in which a charity is established, is different? If there are technical problems, then we must hear about them and think about how they can be overcome.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk has made a major point. It is a completely different one from the general housing association point where the tenant's right to buy is, to my mind, the overriding consideration. We are thinking about a very particular field of charitable activity and it is something about which I am sure Members of your Lordships' House feel the same concerning Scotland as they do for England. I hope the Minister will give us a very detailed reply.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I shall certainly give a detailed reply if that is the wish of the House. However, perhaps I may first deal with one or two of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. With this amendment we enter a field in which emotions have run high. Noble Lords have spoken both here and in Committee in terms which imply that the present
1086
Bill will damage housing associations' work for the most needy sections of the population. We have considered the effect of the right to buy on the housing association movement most carefully, and the Bill now before your Lordships with Amendment No. 10, which I shall be moving shortly, makes provision for exemption for the vast majority of cases where the right to buy would not be appropriate.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made one or two statements which I think I must correct. He said for example, that tenants can buy recently-built houses at half price. That is simply not so. Discount is restricted on newly-built or modernised houses to prevent their sale at less than the landlord's debt in providing the house. The noble Earl also raised the question of rented versus owner-occupier property. People ho can and want to buy should be able to do so. The resources released can be used to provide houses for renting. The noble Earl also suggested that people are selling in order to realise profits on houses bought under the right to buy. We have absolutely no evidence from our research or otherwise that people are exercising the right to buy for that purpose.
I also suggest that the argument that right-to-buy sales would have a serious effect on the rental stock has been advanced since legislation was first introduced in 1980 to give secure tenants in the public sector the right to purchase their homes. However, it is not borne out by the facts. The research report Council House Sales in Scotland, published in May 1985, found that the vast majority of tenants who bought their houses did so because they wished to continue living in them, and only 2 per cent. of buyers quoted the ability to move subsequently as one of the reasons for buying. Very few houses would therefore have become available for re-let in the normal course of events even if they had remained in public sector stock.
There is no reason to believe that the position will be materially different in the housing association field, especially since associations are expected to work in consultation with local authorities in allocating tenancies. However, many houses provided by housing associations are for people for whom more care is needed. They may be old, or disabled in some way. They may be younger, just starting out and still requiring a caring environment. In all these areas, housing associations operate with tremendous success and I pay tribute to them. Many of these associations operate on a charitable basis which gives them a variety of benefits. They gain exemption from liability to tax; local authorities may reduce or disapply their rates and perhaps most important they can receive charitable funds as donations from benefactors or other charities. The Bill exempts charitable housing associations from the right to buy with one or two minor restrictions, and these I shall come to in a moment or two.
The other criteria in the Bill—the requirement to have obtained charitable tax status—is designed to prevent the abuse of new associations being formed expressly to escape the right to buy. We recognise that new associations, whose activities will deal with the disadvantaged will be formed, and will need to he formed, and for them charitable status would be appropriate. For them the wide range of exemptions related to stock—those houses specially adapted or in

1087
the integrated care schemes introduced in this Bill—should enable them to obtain charitable tax status.
We must remember that the houses owned by charitable associations are often no different at all from neighbouring houses which may be owned by the district council, the Scottish Special Housing Association, non-charitable associations or even owner-occupied houses. Local authorities have rights of nomination of tenants to housing associations in their areas. So a person applying for a council house may instead be allocated an association house—and as I have said that might be the same kind as the council would have given him. We must therefore be wary of assuming that we know what a house belonging to a charitable housing association and its tenant happen to look like.
We must remember, too, that the housing association movement is dynamic. The picture painted of associations being brought to their knees by sales is simply not realistic. Sales of the kinds of house held by associations normally thought of as charitable will not be high because the tenants, the beneficiaries of charity (and I make this point particularly for my noble friend Lord Selkirk), will not have the means to buy. However, they must feel equal to their fellows. They must have the right to buy. Why—because they do not have the means at the time—should they be deprived of the right which is available to neighbours a street or two streets away? Where a sale occurs, associations must see that as another person helped on their way by the intervention of the association, and the resources released can go back to help another.
However, the crucial matter is this. Let us look at the scene which might result from this amendment being carried. A large number of tenants would lose the right to buy, a right which they had come to expect. We would have to give serious consideration to the scheme known as HOTCHA, which stands for Home Ownership for Tenants of Charitable Housing Associations. This scheme, which operates now in England and Wales, is a cumbersone one. In principle, a tenant who cannot buy his own home because his landlord is a charitable housing association is assisted to buy a house owned by another non-charitable housing association. Because that would deplete the resources of the non-charitable association, and because the charitable one cannot recompense the selling one, it would be necessary for the Government to pay housing association grant to the selling association. This money would have to come from the overall allocation to the movement and would reduce the work which could be done. HOTCHA operates in England, and considerable sums of money are involved; but there are still many tenants who wish to buy who cannot do so until further grant can be found. Such a scheme will be necessary in due course for those associations in Scotland already exempted. But those associations at present have a relatively low proportion of tenants wishing to buy.
6.30 p.m.
The overall level of resources may not matter immediately to individual associations. They believe
1088
that if they can gain exemption from the right to buy then life can go on as before. I have to say that this seems doubtful. This is important.
Associations have had a very free hand in determining the kinds of project they take on and the tenants they aim to provide for. As a result, we have had some very imaginative projects of the type we have discussed at earlier stages. Other associations have moved into the general needs field under the advantages of charitable status. But if the right to buy is not to apply to such houses I doubt very much whether the Housing Corporation would be able to continue funding their development. At the moment the corporation has a considerable degree of discretion in such matters: I can envisage that their approved development programme might come under much closer scrutiny to ensure the proper targeting of resources. This amendment will not preserve the status quo; it will jeopardise the continued successful development of a vital sector of the movement.
Charitable housing associations play, and will continue to play, an important part in the spectrum of housing provision in Scotland. But to do so their work must be of a nature that is readily understandable as charitable. I am sure that those who desperately need the kind of care and protection which the movement can provide will not understand how families on good incomes living in houses provided by, for example, the largest housing association in Scotland can need charity. That association has a stock of 2,100 houses, over 1,800 of which are general needs houses. We can quibble about numbers, but the charitable status of this association must rest on just 140 special needs houses they own.
The rest are houses no different from any other ordinary public sector houses. If those houses are sold, the resources released might solve the housing problem of the disadvantaged man and give him the housing rights many others now enjoy. We are anxious to protect the legitimate interests of the charitable housing association and we believe that the Bill does so for the great majority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised a question which had been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I am sure that I speak for everybody in the House when I extend to him our warmest good wishes on this, his birthday. I am sorry that he seeks such an unusual—and I hope unattainable—birthday present. However, I shall do my best to try to persuade him that a celebratory refreshment with me on the success against the amendment might be more appropriate.
The noble Baroness asked about Scotland and England. In Scotland housing associations have developed since 1980 when the right to buy was first introduced; but they have developed separately from their counterparts in England who have been subject to the right to buy since 1980. The charities legislation is different north and south of the Border. Charities in England are controlled by the Charity Commissioners under the Charities Act 1960, and there is no equivalent legislation in Scotland. The reasons for there being no Scottish Act are not now clear. We would need a major Bill for which there is no clear need. It is only on occasions like this that we come across instances where such a piece of legislation would be useful.

1089
The noble Baroness also asked why there is no room for future charitable associations. I accept the noble Baroness's concern that there should be scope for future charitable housing associations to be formed. This is something that I am prepared to consider, but at the moment I must try to persuade your Lordships that I feel that the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if accepted by the House would have serious implications, and ones which I am sure many of the housing associations would not seek.
I have tried to explain why this would be so. I am not persuaded by the arguments that the noble Earl has put forward, although I realise that, with his great experience in this subject, he seeks improvement. I am not persuaded that the way he is approaching this Bill at this stage would achieve the improvement that he seeks.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I do not know what effect that answer will have on the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who made such a powerful speech in moving this amendment. No doubt his clearer mind than mine will have understood what the Minister is saying. I have been left in considerable doubt. At one point I thought that the Minister more or less categorically said that there is no reason in the future why more charitable housing associations should not be formed. But then in answer to the noble Baroness who speaks from the other side of the House he said that he would look at this matter again.
Can the noble Lord tell us whether it is his view that the Bill, as drafted at present, will prevent the formation of further charitable associations, or does he take the view that they can be formed despite the Bill? This would seem to be an extremely important matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who told us that in his view it would be impossible in the future to form these associations.
There is another point on which I am not sure about the Government's attitude. I should have thought that it is now apparent that there is a great need in Scotland, and indeed all over Britain, for more accommodation to rent. Up to a certain point, I am in favour of local authorities selling houses. However for various reasons, and reasons of a quite wide spectrum it is generally agreed that there is now—and this point was made forcefully by the noble Earl—a great need for more rented accommodation. Do the Government share that view? If they share it, do they think that the Bill as it stands is going to encourage it? These are two fundamental matters, and I am not clear what the answer of the Government so far has been.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, we must try not to be emotional about this. It worries my noble friend. We must be very matter of fact and down to earth when we are talking about this. The most interesting thing was something that my noble friend did not say. He did not mention the fact that the Housing Corporation had been turned upside down; that the purposes for which it was originally formed had disappeared. The noble Lord does not want it. All he wants is housing ownership. I have already said that house ownership is going ahead extremely well. What we need is rented accommodation.
1090
As the noble Lord has said—and he let the cat out of the bag—he is angry, or his office is, with one housing association, the Link. The Link will sell as much as you like, my Lords; but it does not sell at a discount because it has ceased to be a charity. That is something that we should not allow to affect every other housing association in the country. It is totally unnecessary. There are plenty of ways of dealing with the Link. They can deal with the HOTCHA system (which is quite satisfactory) if they want to, as the noble Lord said himself. I am delighted that he mentioned it, because it is an important system.
I do not think that we, as a House, can agree that no future charitable housing association can practically he formed. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked that question. The answer is that of course you can form a charity if you like; but you will not get very far because in a short time you will be made to sell your houses at a discount. You will then cease to be a charity. If you refuse to do that you will be run into the courts. I think that is a wrong principle. From the beginning it has always been regarded that charity is an integral part of the welfare state. It is now and it always will be. I beg to move.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 76.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Amherst, E.

Grey, E.

Ampthill, L.

Grimond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Atholl, D.

Hanworth, V.

Attlee, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blease, L.

Hertford, M.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Heycock, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caradon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kennet, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cromartie, E.

Kintore, E.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Denington, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mar, C.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Falkender, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Newall, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norrie, L.

Glenamara, L.

Northfield, L.

1091

Oram, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Parry, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Perth, E.

Swinfen, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rhodes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Richardson, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rochester, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Seebohm, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shannon, E.

Wigoder, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Simon, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Layton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bauer, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Birdwood, L.

McFadzean, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Portland, D.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Sharples, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Teynham, L.

Holderness, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Inglewood, L.

Vickers, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimberley, E.

Wynford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
6.49 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 29, leave out lines 38 to 48 and insert—
(" (b) section 10(2)(i) of this Act and—

(i) the tenant is a member of a Fire Brigade, maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act 1947, who occupies the dwelling house in consequence of a condition in his contract of employment that he live in close proximity to a particular fire station; or

1092

(ii) in a case where (i) above does not apply the tenant is let the dwelling house expressly on a temporary basis pending its being required for the purposes of such a Fire Brigade; or

(iii) in any case, where the dwelling house is held by the Fire Authority for the operational purposes of its functions and is required for the accommodation of a person who is or will be employed by the Fire Authority for those purposes and the Chief Fire Office has issued a certificate in writing to that effect to the tenant.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to hear that I want information and that no more virtue will be forced upon him today. The fact is that certain provisions have been made for the Islands authorities which should apply to the Highland areas and perhaps to the Borders as well. I put down this amendment which applies to the fire brigade officers, but it applies also to police houses, certainly to teachers' houses and to a number of other people. These houses are very often not let as tied houses without rent, but simply are available as ordinary authority houses to essential people such as fire brigade officiers, teachers and the police. They are essential to the running of the communities, and it is true that the Act says that the following are exempt: a member of a fire brigade who occupies a dwelling house in consequence of a condition of this contract of employment that he live in close proximity to a particular fire station. In actual fact in a Highland region there is no such contract of employment. The same applies, of course, to the other people I mentioned.
I do not want to labour this. I think the Minister understands perfectly that it is very important for the Highland region and indeed for the Borders. I should like an explanation from him as to how he thinks the situation would be overcome if members of the fire brigade, the police or teachers actually had a right to buy these houses, which are kept in order to attract new applicants for these very necessary posts. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, in this Bill we are extending security of tenure and the right to buy to tenants of regional authorities, including police and fire authorities. When this Bill had its Report stage in another place, however, concern was expressed on behalf of the Highlands and Islands Fire Board that our proposals to exclude houses required for the purpose of a fire authority might still not be sufficient to enable the board to refuse applications by certain officers in locations where the board felt it would be difficult to make available suitable replacement housing. I may say that this was the first we had heard of these anxieties, but we undertook to look into them carefully to see whether any further amendment to the Bill was needed.
We looked into the matter very carefully. On investigation it turned out that they were in fact only five houses in the Highlands and Islands area about which the board felt concern. They are not houses which the board is required to provide. Furthermore, they are in centres of population such as Invergordon, Kirkwall and Stornoway. They are not in isolated locations. However, having taken advice, it is our view that if the board were faced with an application to buy one of these five houses it might refuse the application on the ground that the officer required to occupy the

1093
house as a condition of his own employment and that therefore the house was excluded under Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act.
My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, Mr. Ancram, wrote on the 25th April to Members who had intervened in the debate in another place, setting out these conclusions. I believe therefore that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary. It is also, I must say, unwelcome. It would give a public authority whose tenants are being given security and the right to buy under this Bill the power to revoke those rights simply by writing to the tenant and telling him that he is not a secure tenant. In my view, this would make a nonsense of what we are trying to do in the present Bill. It would be tantamount to saying to the tenant, "We will give you certain rights to buy but only if your landlord says you may." That does not appear to me to be any advance on the present position.
In conclusion, I repeat that the Bill makes provision to exclude houses let to serving fire officers in connection with their employment or in other circumstances where they may be required by fire authorities. We have looked very carefully into the particular concerns of the Highlands and Islands Fire Board, but have concluded that they are unfounded. In the light of this explanation, I trust the noble Lord will accept that his amendment is unnecessary and will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the explanation is a little like the curate's egg: good in parts. I think the Minister has had enough of a bashing, so I will consider his reply and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 30, line 43, at end insert—
(" The Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974 (c. 38)
. In section 8(7) of the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974 (saving)—

(a) for the words "1971" there shall be substituted the words "1984 or a secure tenancy within the meaning of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980"; and

(b) for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "either of those Acts".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally. I have already spoken to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 32, line 30, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 1, paragraph 1.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally. I have already spoken to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
6.56 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Confiscation orders]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, home Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, home Office (Lord Glenarthur) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 14, leave out (" (other than the payment of costs)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and at the same time perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 67. These amendments deal with costs. The amendment to Clause 1 will enable the Crown Court to take account of the extent to which an offender's assets have been reduced by a confiscation order before deciding how much he is able to pay or contribute towards prosecution costs. Of course if he still retains substantial assets then it is right that he should pay or contribute towards these costs, as with any other type of offender, but where most of his property has been confiscated it would be wrong to assess his proper contribution to costs as if he were still a very wealthy man. He might be saddled with an order he simply could not pay.
The amendment to Clause 6 specifies more precisely which parts of the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 apply to the sums realised under a confiscation order. The amendments to Clause 12 provide for the receiver to be paid from the proceeds of confiscation and, where the prosecution have paid him something on account, for the prosecution to be reimbursed. This links with the new clause to be added after Clause 14, which specifies that the prosecution can pay the receiver where no sum is available from assets. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 3, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert ("the values of the payments or other rewards").
Page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc and with them to take a rather long list of amendments. These are Amendments Nos. 5, 8 to 10, 13, 15 to 26, 31, 35, 38, 41 to 46, 49, 52 to 58, 63, 65, 70, 72, 73 and 79. I think that this substantial number of amendments can be usefully discussed together. Although they affect a variety of clauses, they all concern two issues—property in the hands of third parties and, related to that, the way in which the courts will assess the amount to be recovered under a confiscation order.
I think that I can be reasonably brief. The amendments replace the concept of property available in respect of the defendant by that of realisable property. This will include any property held by the defendant, and any held by a third party to whom he had made what is termed a gift caught by the Act: that is, property transferred for significantly less than full value. The amount to be recovered from the third parties will be no more than the net value of the gifts—the difference between the value of the property they received and any consideration they gave. But

1095
restraint and confiscation will not be limited to those assets which have actually been received from the trafficker. I believe that that represents a valuable tightening up of the provisions of the Bill.
The second element in this batch of amendments consists of changes proposed to the way in which the courts will determine the amount to be recovered under a confiscation order and are intended to fulfil a commitment given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place. The batch of amendments will enable the courts to take as the value of the proceeds of drug trafficking either the value of any payments or rewards at the time they were received, with an adjustment for inflation, or, if the trafficker still holds the assets or property acquired with them, their current value, whichever is the greater.
Where a gift or its value is to be recovered from a third party, the courts will apply a similar method of assessment. This will ensure that neither the trafficker nor his associates are able to retain the benefit of substantial increases in the value of property directly or indirectly acquired with the proceeds of drug trafficking. If the trafficker has spent his proceeds, or the associate his gift, and there are insufficient alternative assets available to make up for the money which has disappeared, the Bill makes provision in Clause 4(3) for the amount of the confiscation order to be limited accordingly. I hope that that has been an adequate explanation of what is intended by these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister very courteously wrote to me, to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with a very full explanation of the basis for these amendments. He gave us time to reflect upon them and we certainly agree with them.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Statements relating to drug trafficking]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be convenient to discuss also Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 30, 33, 51, 91 and 111. There are a number of references throughout the Bill to the prosecuting authority. It is the prosecuting authority, for example, which must apply for a restraint or charging order, or seek the appointment of a receiver to realise a convicted trafficker's assets. We believe it would be better to use the word "prosecutor" to make it clear that we are including in the term the person with day-to-day responsibility for prosecuting the case and not the authority ultimately responsible. This terminology is also in line with that used in other statutes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 10:
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("from property available in respect of the defendant").
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("prosecuting authority" and insert ("prosecutor").
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
Clause 4, page 5, line 26, leave out ("from the property available in respect of the defendant").
Clause 4, page 5, line 32, leave out ("from the property available in respect of the defendant").
Clause 5, page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 6 and insert—
("(1) In this Act, "realisable property" means, subject to subsection (2) below—

(a) any property held by the defendant, and

(b) any property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act.

(2) Property isnot realisable property if").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to most of these amendments with Amendments Nos. 2 to 3, and my noble friend Lord Davidson has discussed Nos. 6 and 7. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Confiscation orders: definition of terms]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("or").
Page 6, line 18, at end insert ("; or
(c) an order under section 223 or 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (forfeiture of property)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are the first of a series of Scottish amendments to the Bill which I propose to move today. It may therefore be to the benefit of the House if I explain the general purpose of all the amendments in my name at this stage. As your Lordships will recognise, this Bill builds on established features of the English legal system, particularly in relation to the law on receivers and charging orders, in a way which cannot readily be transplanted to Scotland. It is therefore impracticable simply to extend this Bill to Scotland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already announced his intention to introduce separate Scottish legislation at the earliest opportunity.
However, in order to avoid the undesirable situation by which Scotland might become a haven for the assets of drug traffickers operating in England and Wales, we propose that the provisions in the present Bill should be extended to Scotland so far as is necessary to ensure effective cross-Border enforcement of orders under the Bill; and the amendments which I shall be moving today are directed to that end.
The most important effects of the amendments are that orders made by the High Court in England and Wales will be recognised as having effect in relation to assets in Scotland and if registered in the Court of Sessions—that is, the supreme civil court in Scotland—will be enforced by that court. Receivers appointed under the Bill will be able to exercise their powers in Scotland, and the police in Scotland will be given the same powers as the English police to obtain information about assets where a court has authorised that. That will enable them to assist the English police as required and also to pursue their own inquiries into drug trafficking more effectively.
I must apologise to the House for bringing these amendments forward at this stage of the prceedings on the Bill, but since the amendments are technically rather complex because of the difficulties inherent in relating the two different legal systems to each other, their preparation has been no easy task.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which I am now moving, concern the matter of forfeiture. The criminal courts in Scotland have general powers to order that property used in committing an offence may be forfeited on conviction. These amendments ensure that any property which already stands forfeit under those provisions will not be regarded as realisable for the satisfaction of a confiscation order imposed by an English court. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I say at once that I appreciate fully the reasons for the amendments that are now before us. It would indeed be very invidious if it were possible for a drug trafficker to make off with his proceeds by removing them north of the Border and with this Bill, which we hope will soon become an Act, not enforceable over the Border. The only matter that I want to raise from the point of view of tidiness is this. The noble and learned Lord talked in terms of fresh Scottish legislation coming before us. We will then presumably have this Act with part of the provisions and another Act dealing with the whole of the provisions that relate to Scotland. Has the noble and learned Lord given any thought to the possibility that in that Act the provisions of this Bill will be incorporated and will be cancelled in this legislation? Otherwise we are going to have two Acts which relate to Scotland and the dichotomy is a little untidy.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, perhaps I should say that the separate Scottish legislation will be intended to give the Scottish courts powers similar to those which under this Bill are given to the English courts. The purpose of the amendments to this Bill is to allow English orders to become effective in Scotland. Any separate Scottish legislation would, I am sure, have similar cross-Border enforcement for Scottish orders so far as concerns assets which may be in England and Wales. So the two would, I suggest—we shall obviously have to wait and see the legislation which comes forward—be able to run in train. It may be that there will be one or two amendments, and as to that I can give no undertaking at all at present. But I have noted what the noble Lord opposite has said.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14, and Amendment No. 133 which is connected with it, are drafting amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 27:
Page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (5).
Page 7, line 1, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of sections 3 and 4 of this Act").
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("from the property available in respect of the defendant").
Page 7, line 4, leave out ("of all such property at that time") and insert ("at that time of all the realisable property held by the defendant").
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("together with the total of the values at that time of all gifts caught by this Act").
Page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this section, for the purposes of this Act the value of property (other than cash) in relation to any person holding the property—

(a) where any other person holds an interest in the property, is").

Page 7, line 12, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("first mentioned person's beneficial").
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("the relevant") and insert ("that").
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("the value of property (other than cash)").
Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("(7A) Subject to subsection (11) below, references in this Act to the value at any time ("the material time") of a gift caught by this Act or of any payment or reward are references to—

(a) the value of the gift, payment or reward to the recipient when he received it adjusted to take account of subsequent changes in the value of money, or

(b) where subsection (7B) below applies, the value there mentioned,

whichever is the greater.
(7B) Subject to subsection (11) below, if at the material time the recipient holds—

(a) the property which he received (not being cash), or

(b) property which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represents in his hands the property which he received,

the value referred to in subsection (7A)(b) above is the value to him at the material time of the property mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, of the property mentioned in paragraph (b) above so far as it so represents the property which he received, but disregarding in either case any charging order.").
Page 7, line 19, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (6) above").
Page 7, line 44, at end insert—
("(10) A gift (including a gift made before the commencement of section 1 of this Act) is caught by this Act if—

(a) it was made by the defendant at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him, or

(b) it was made by the defendant at any time and was a gift of property—

(i) received by the defendant in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another, or

(ii) which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented in the defendant's hands property received by him in that connection.

(11) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) the circumstances in which the defendant is to be treated as making a gift include those where he transfers property to another person directly or indirectly for a consideration the value of which is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by the defendant, and

(b) in those circumstances, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply as if the defendant had made a gift of such share in the property as bears to the whole property the same proportion as the difference between the values referred to in paragraph (a) above bears to the value of the consideration provided by the defendant.").

Clause 6, page 8, line 2, leave out ("and 32") and insert ("(1) to (3C) and 32(1) and (2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("and 9") and insert ("9 and [Inhibition and arrestment in Scotland])".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is simply to ensure that the interpretations of terms contained in subsection (3) of Clause 7 will apply to the new clause on inhibition and arrestment in Scotland which is to be inserted after Clause 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("by virtue only of subsection (2) above") and insert ("before proceedings have been instituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 10, line 7, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Restraint orders]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The High Court may by order (in this Act referred to as a "restraint order") prohibit any person from dealing with any realisable property, subject to such conditions and exceptions as may be specified in the order.
(1A) A restraint order may apply—

(a) to all realisable property held by a specified person, whether the property is described in the order or not, and

b) to realisable property held by a specified person, being property transferred to him after the making of the order.

(1B) This section shall not have effect in relation to any property for the time being subject to a charge under section 9 of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment it may also be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 33, 36, 37, 39 and 40. These amendments are designed to clarify the operation of the restraint powers provided by Clause 8. The proposed revision of subsection (1) makes it clear that, if it thinks it appropriate, the High Court can make a blanket restraint order in respect of a named person which would cover all his realisable property without specifying particular assets in the order.
That might be a suitable course in the case of a wealthy trafficker whose assets were still being investigated at the time the restraint order was made. It would ensure that as assets were discovered by the receiver or other investigators they would be restrained without the delay which seeking a new restraint order would require. Such a blanket order would also cover property which might be acquired by the person specified after the restraint order had been made.
Amendment No. 32, a further consequential amendment to subsection (5)(a), ensures that police and customs officers in Scotland will be able to seize property which is subject to a restraint order in order to prevent its removal from Great Britain. I believe that both these amendments will be helpful to the High Court in exercising its restraint powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 10, leave out line 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendment No. 47.
At present the Bill provides for the High Court to vary a restraint or charging order only on the application of the holder of the affected property. However, we believe on reflection that this limitation might well work against the objective of ensuring that the assets needed to satisfy the confiscation order remain available for realisation. If, for example, the prosecution has initially underestimated the value of a gift made by the defendant to a third party, it ought to be able to apply to the High Court for a variation in a restraint or charging order so that the true value of the gift can be secured. Unless it can do so the trafficker's relative or friend might enjoy a substantial bonus.
Similarly, some new property not covered by that described in the first order might be discovered and the original order could be varied to enable it to cover the newly found property. These amendments are therefore in line with the other provisions in the Bill designed to ensure that assets do not escape the confiscation net. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 47:
Page 10, line 41, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 43 and insert ("realisable property")
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section")
Page 11, line 8, leave out from ("property") to end of line 9 and insert ("held by any person includes (without prejudice to the generality of the expression)—

(a) where a debt is owed to that person, making a payment to any person in reduction of the amount of the debt, and

(b) removing the property from Great Britain.

(5A) Where the ")
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property")
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("the jurisdiction") and insert ("Great Britain").
Page 11, line 14, leave out ("5") and insert ("5A")
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property")
Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("Crown") to end of line 21 and insert—

("(a) where a confiscation order has not been made, of an amount equal to the value from time to time of the property charged, and

(b) in any other case, of an amount not exceeding the amount payable under the confiscation order.").

Page 11, line 23, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
Page 11, line 33, leave out from ("any") to end of line 34 and insert ("interest in realisable property, being an interest held beneficially by the defendant or by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act").
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 12, line 18, leave out from ("may") to ("make") in line 19.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Charging orders: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) Where a charging order has been registered under section 6 of the Land Charges Act 1972, subsection (4) of that section (effect of non-registration of writs and orders registrable under that section) shall not apply to an order appointing a receiver made in pursuance of the charging order.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment it may also be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 50 and 135. These are purely technical amendments relating to the operation of charging orders under the Bill and involve no changes of any substance. The purpose of the amendment to Clause 10 is to ensure that an order appointing a receiver in pursuance of a charging order remains in force where land which is the subject of the order changes hands. Without such provision an order appointing the receiver would be void against the purchaser in the event of a failure to register the change of ownership as required by the Land Charges Act 1972. The amendment to Clause 31 makes a minor consequential amendment to the Land Registration Act 1925. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved amendments Nos. 49 to 58:
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("beneficial").
Page 12, leave out lines 39 to 42.
Clause 11, page 13, line 21, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("the property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 13, line 33, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 13, line 42, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 14, line 2, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 14, line 3, leave out ("relevant interest") and insert ("beneficial interest held by the defendant or, as the case may be, the recipient of a gift caught by this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 59
Page 14, line 10, leave out ("subsections") and insert ("subsection (3)(a)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I believe that I can explain the purpose of this amendment quite briefly. Clause 11(8) as presently drafted provides for holders of property liable to confiscation to make representations to the High Court before their property is realised. We believe that that right to make representations should be extended so that those whose property is subject to a charging order cat) be heard before the charge is enforced. That seems Only just. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Application of proceeds of realisation and other sums]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 14, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 60 I should like, with the leave of your Lordships, to speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 62, 64 and 66. The first four amendments to Clause 12 are merely drafting amendments designed to tidy up the wording of subsection (1). The final amendment, however, arises from an important point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee. He proposed that the High Court should be required to hear representations from the offender before giving directions as to the distribution of any surplus cash left in the hands of the receiver after the confiscation order had been satisfied in full.
I expressed some reservations about that proposal because it meant that the offender would be placed in a special position to influence the distribution of surplus cash that represented the proceeds of realisation from other people's property as well as his own. Having looked at the matter again, I hope that I can meet the concern of the noble Lord, and indeed the concern of others, by proposing that any person who held property that has been realised for the purpose of satisfying the confiscation order should have a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the court before any surplus cash is distributed. I hope that meets the concerns of the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think that the amendment now before us is indeed an improvement on the one that I suggested. I readily accept it. I am most grateful for the most gracious way it has been dealt with.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 14, line 17, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 14, line 23, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 25.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 67:
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("held by the defendant").
Page 14, line 28, leave out ("subject to subsection (2) below") and insert ("after such payments (if any) as the High Court may direct have been made out of those sums").
Page 14, line 34, leave out ("was property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("has been realised under this Act").
Page 14, line 37, at end insert ("after giving a reasonable opportunity for such persons to make representations to the court").
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The receipt of any sum by a justices' clerk on account of an amount payable under a confiscation order shall reduce the amount so payable, but the sum shall be applied as follows:—

(a) if paid by a receiver under subsection (1) above, it shall first be applied in payment of his remuneration and expenses,

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above, it shall be applied in reimbursement of any sums paid by the prosecutor under section (Receivers: supplementary provisions) (2) of this Act,

and the balance shall be treated for the purposes of section 61 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (application of fines, etc.) as if it were a fine imposed by a magistrates' court.
In this subsection, "justices' clerk" has the same meaning as in the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [Exercise of powers by High Court or receiver]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 15, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("or on the Court of Session by sections [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23], [Scotland: supplementary] and [Inhibitions and arrestments in Scotland] of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 13 lays down the way in which the High Court or receiver appointed under the Bill should exercise the powers granted to them by the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to make a modification to the clause, to enable it to apply also to procedures under the Bill in Scotland. The amendment accordingly inserts references to the powers of the Court of Session under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 15, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the powers shall be exercised with a view to making available for satisfying the confiscation order or, as the case may be, any confiscation order that may be made in the defendant's case the value for the time being of realisable property held by any person by the realisation of such property.
(2A) In the case of realisable property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act, the powers shall be exercised with a view to realising no more than the value for the time being of the gift.
(2B) The powers shall be exercised with a view to allowing any person other than the defendant or the recipient of any such gift to retain or recover the value of any property held by him.
(2C) An order may be made or other action taken in respect of a debt owed by the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 13(2) sets out the guiding principles that are to govern the exercise of restraint, charging and realisation powers under the Bill. This amendment seeks to clarify that guidance in the light of other changes with regard to those who have received gifts from the defendant. The changes suggested to the opening part of the subsection are purely drafting changes, reflecting the new terminology now adopted elsewhere in the Bill, but subsections (2A) and (2B) now differentiate between the two separate categories of third parties; those who have received property from the defendant for less than full value and those who happen to own only a part share in property which, for reasons that are nothing to do with them, is subject to realisation under the Bill.
Restraint, charging and realisation powers are to be exercised in respect of recipients of gifts with a view to recovering no more than the current value of the gift, but any of their assets may be confiscated for that purpose. Those third parties who have not received property from the defendant for less than full value are treated differently. Although they may find that property in which they have a joint interest with the defendant or another having to be realised to satisfy a confiscation order, in those circumstances the third party will be allowed to retain or recover the value of his property.
I ought to mention here that the High Court can give directions as to the order in which property is to be realised. It would therefore be open to the court to direct that property in which an innocent third party has an interest should be realised only after the property held by the defendant, legitimately or illegitimately obtained, has been realised.
The proposed subsection (2C) introduces a new element into the Bill by specifying that debts owed by the Crown are subject to restraint and realisation under the Bill. That will ensure that funds in, for example, National Savings will be as accessible to the courts as is money placed in a bank or building society. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 15, line 20, leave out ("any other person") and insert ("of the recipient of any such gift").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 15, line 22, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 76. We thought it right in preparing this Bill that account should be taken of the possibility that assets belonging to a trafficker might be tied up in bankruptcy proceedings at the time when the confiscation order is made against him, or when a restraint order is made. The way in which the Bill at present deals with the matter is this.
Clause 5(4) provides that the Crown Court should take account of such assets when determining the amount of the confiscation order. That will ensure that

1105
if assets eventually become available notwithstanding the bankruptcy proceedings, then they can be confiscated. But Clause 13 (4) provides that no action should be taken to realise such property until bankruptcy proceedings are concluded. That means that provided the bankruptcy proceedings have already reached a stage at which it plainly would be unreasonable to give priority to confiscation over the demands of the insolvency procedure, the latter will have priority.
However, once the creditors have been satisfied, any remaining property would be realised to meet the confiscation order. Under recent changes in insolvency law, property vests in a trustee only at a very late stage in the proceedings. In particular, it may do so some time after a bankruptcy order is actually made. Looking at the matter again in the light of the new system, we believe it would be reasonable to bring forward to some extent the point at which we accord creditors in insolvency priority over the restraining and confiscation procedures set out in the Bill. We believe that the right point is the making of the bankruptcy order rather than when the assets vest in a trustee. The amendments are designed to achieve that end.
We are considering whether further amendments are required to deal with the liquidation of companies as opposed to individual insolvencies. If so, then I will seek to bring such amendments forward for consideration on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in case any noble Lords should think that these technical amendments are coming before the House very late, there are two points I should like to make in fairness. First, those of us who have been particularly interested in this Bill have again received explanations before the amendment came before the House today which have proved most helpful. Secondly, it must be borne in mind—and I may be referring to this point hereafter—that this Bill is a real precedent in our legislation in respect of confiscation and dealing with proceeds. Therefore, a heavy burden has fallen upon those who are guiding the Minister. We appreciate the reason why these technical amendments have, possibly, come before the House at an unusually late point.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think that I would agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Confronted with 140 amendments to a Government Bill, it is appropriate to say something about them. I join with the noble Lord in thanking the Minister for having written to us with an explanation what were the Government's intentions in the series of amendments that we are now discussing. Having said that, I very much regret that some of those amendments have arrived relatively late in the day and that some are starred Government amendments.
Bluntly, we should not be having starred Government amendments after a substantial gap between the Committee and Report stages. However, I do not wish in any way to subtract from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We are much appreciative of the explanation that has been
1106
given. However, I think that we might in future have longer notice of the amendments that are tabled.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments on the way that we have tried to take this matter forward. I apologise for some amendments being so late, but some are extremely technical. They have required extensive consultations within Government, and outside. That is why, regrettably, even with the long period that has elapsed since the Committee stage, it has not been possible to bring them forward earlier. I only wish that it had been possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments No. 72 to 76:
Page 15, line 24, leave out subsection (5).
Clause 14, page 15, line 28, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
Page 15, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("realisable property held by a person who has been adjudged bankrupt or whose estate has been sequestrated").
Page 15, line 35, leave out from ("which") to ("may") in line 36 and insert ("any property held by him").
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Bankruptcy of defendant etc.
.—(1) Where a person who holds realisable property is adjudged bankrupt—

(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the order adjudging him bankrupt, and

(b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of section 8(4) or 11(5) or (6) of this Act for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under section 8 or 11 of this Act,

is excluded from the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of Part III of the Insolvency Act 1985.
(2) Where a person has been adjudged bankrupt, the powers conferred on the High Court by sections 8 to 12 of this Act or on a receiver so appointed or on the Court of Session by section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23], [Scotland: supplementary] and [Inhibitions and arrestments in Scotland] shall not be exercised in relation to—

(a) property for the time being comprised in the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of that Part,

(b) property in respect of which his trustee in bankruptcy may (without leave of court) serve a notice under section 154 or 155 of that Act (after-acquired property and tools, clothes etc. exceeding value of reasonable replacement), and

(c) property which is to be applied for the benefit of creditors of the bankrupt by virtue of a condition imposed under section 127(2)(c) of that Act.

(3) Nothing in that Act shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of the those powers.
(4) Subsection (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order—

(a) made before the order adjudging the person bankrupt, or

(b) on property which was subject to a restraint order when the order adjudging him bankrupt was made.

(5) Where, in the case of a debtor, an interim receiver stands appointed under section 133 of that Act and any property of the debtor is subject to a restraint order—

(a) the powers conferred on the receiver by virtue of that Act do not apply to property for the time being subject to the restraint order,

(b) section 134(6) of that Act (receiver's immunity), as it applies to the receiver by virtue of section 133(3) of that Act, shall have effect in relation to such property as if references to such property were substituted for references to property which is not comprised in the bankrupt's estate, and

(c) any such property in the hands of the receiver shall be dealt with in such manner as the High Court may direct.

(6) Where a person is adjudged bankrupt and has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act—

(a) no order shall be made under section 174 or 21 2 of that Act (avoidance of certain transactions) in respect of the

1107
making of the gift at any time when proceedings for a drug trafficking offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded or when property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order, and

(b) any order made under either of those sections after the conclusion of the proceedings shall take into account any realisation under this Act of property held by the person to whom the gift was made.

(7) In any case in which a petition in bankruptcy is presented, or a receiving order or adjudication in bankruptcy is made, before the date on which Part III of that Act comes into force, this section has effect with the following modifications—

(a) for references to the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of Part III of the Insolvency Act 1985 there are substituted references to the property of the bankrupt for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1914.

(b) for references to the Act of 1985 and sections 127(2)(c), 133, 174 and 212 of that Act there are respectively substituted references to the Act of 1914 and to sections 26(2), 8, 27 and 42 of that Act,

(c) the references in subsection (5) to an interim receiver appointed as there mentioned include, where a receiving order has been made, a reference to the receiver constituted by virtue of section 7 of the Act of 1914, and

(d) subsections (2)(b) and (5)(a) and (b) are omitted.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Sequestration in Scotland of defendant etc.
.—(1) Where the estate of a person who holds realisable property is sequestrated—

(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the award of sequestration, and

(b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of section 8(4) or 11(5) or (6) of this Act for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under section 8 or 11 of this Act,

is excluded from the debtor's estate for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
(2) Where an award of sequestration has been made, the powers conferred on the High Court by sections 8 to 12 of this Act or on a receiver so appointed or on the Court of Session by section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23], [Scotland: supplementary] and [Inhibitions and arrestments in Scotland] shall not be exercised in relation to—

(a) property comprised in the whole estate of the debtor within the meaning of section 31(8) of that Act,

(b) any income of the debtor which has been odered, under subsection (2) of section 32 of that Act, to be paid to the permanent trustee or any estate which, under subsection (6) of that section, vests in the permanent trustee.

(3) Nothing in that Act shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of those powers.
(4) Subsection (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order—

(a) made before the award of sequestration, or

(b) on property which was subject to a restraint order when the award of sequestration was made.

(5) Where, during the period before sequestration is awarded, an interim trustee stands appointed under the proviso to section 13(1) of that Act and any property in the debtor's estate is subject to a restraint order—

(a) the powers conferred on the trustee by virtue of that Act do not apply to property for the time being subject to the restraint order,

(b) the trustee, if he seizes or disposes of any property for the time being subject to the restraint order and, when he does so, believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled (whether in pursuance of an order of a court or otherwise) to do so—

(i) shall not (except insofar as the same has been caused by his negligence) be liable to any person in respect of any
1108
loss or damage resulting from his seizure or disposal of the property; and

(ii) shall have a lien on the property, or the proceeds of its sale for such of the expenses of the sequestration as were incurred in connection with the seizure or disposal, and

(c) any such property in the hands of the trustee shall be dealt with in such manner as the High Court may direct.

(6) Where the estate of a person is sequestrated and he has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act—

(a) no decree shall be granted under section 34 or 36 of that Act (gratuitous alienations and unfair preferences) in respect of the making of the gift at any time when proceedings for a drug trafficking offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded or when property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order, and

(b) any decree made under either of those sections after the conclusion of the proceedings shall take into account any realisation under this Act of property held by the person to whom the gift was made.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause regulates the relationship between the provisions of this Bill and Scottish sequestrations in the same way as the preceding new clause in Amendment No. 76 regulates the relationship with English bankruptcies. This is necessary because the Bill extends to property in Scotland and because Scottish bankruptcies extend to property in England.
As I said, the relationship between the provisions of the Bill and the sequestrations under Scots law is regulated in exactly the same way as the Bill will now regulate the relationship with English bankruptcies. The basic policy is that once property has been made subject to a restraint order it cannot subsequently be sequestrated. Conversely, once property has been sequestrated it will not be possible to restrain and realise it under the provisions of this Bill.
If your Lordships wish, I can expand a little on the subsections but otherwise I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Receivers: supplementary provisions.
.—(1) Where a receiver appointed under section 8 or 11 of this Act or in pursuance of a charging order takes any action—

(a) in relation to property which is not realisable property, being action which he would be entitled to take if it were such property,

(b) believing, and having reasonable grounds for believing, that he is entitled to take that action in relation to that property,

he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from his action except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence.
(2) Any amount due in respect of the remuneration and expenses of a receiver so appointed shall, if no sum is available to be applied in payment of it under section 12(3)(a) of this Act, be paid by the prosecutor or, in a case where proceedings for a drug trafficking offence are not instituted, by the person on whose application the receiver was appointed.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this new clause contains supplementary provisions relating to receivers who are appointed by the courts in connection with restraint or realisation of assets. Subsection (1) protects the receiver from liability in respect of loss or damage resulting from action he takes in relation to property which turns out not to be realisable property, provided he believes on reasonable grounds that he is entitled to take such action and does not act negligently.
This provision is intended to cover cases where the receiver acts against property which he believes reasonably, but in the event erroneously, to be realisable property. Of course, the holder of such property would be entitled to receive the proceeds of the realisation. I believe that such a provision is essential if the receiver is to be able to discharge his statutory duties speedily and effectively.
Your Lordships will recall that Clause 12(3), as amended, provides for the receiver's costs to be met out of confiscated assets. This will only be possible in cases where a confiscation order is imposed and the proceeds of realisation are sufficient to meet the receiver's costs in full. There will be other cases where the receiver is appointed but the defendant is acquitted or sufficient proceeds are realised. The amendment we propose provides that in such cases the receiver's costs, or the balance of them, shall be paid by the prosecutor. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Compensation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("property available in respect of the defendant") and insert ("realisable property").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 16, line 40, leave out from ("or) to ("or) in line 42 and insert ("the Court of Session under section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23], [Scotland: supplementary] or [Inhibitions and arrestments in Scotland].").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment consequential upon the proposed deletion of Clause 16 from the Bill and the insertion of new clauses dealing with enforcement in Scotland of orders under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23.
.—(1) An order to which this section applies shall, subject to this section and section [Scotland: supplementary] of this Act, have effect in the law of Scotland but shall be enforced in Scotland only in accordance with this section and that section.
(2) A receiver's functions under or for the purposes of section 8, 11 or 12 of this Act shall, subject to this section and section [Scotland: supplementary] of this Act, have effect in the law of Scotland.
(3) If an order to which this section applies is registered under this section—

(a) the Court of Session shall have, in relation to its enforcement, the same power;

(b) proceedings for or with respect to its enforcement may be taken; and

(c) proceedings for or with respect to any contravention of such an order (whether before or after such registration) may be taken

as if the order had originally been made in that Court.
(4) Nothing in this section enables any provision of an order which empowers a receiver to do anything in Scotland under section 11(3)(a) of this Act to have effect in the law of Scotland.
(5) The orders to which this section applies are orders of the High Court—

(a) made under section 8, 11, 12 or 23 of this Act;

(b) relating to the exercise by that Court of its powers under those sections; or

(c) relating to receivers in the performance of their functions under sections 8, 11 or 12 of this Act,

but not including an order in proceedings for enforcement of any such order.
(6) References in this section to an order under section 8 of this Act include references to a discharge under section 7(4) of this Act of such an order.
(7) In this section and in sections [Scotland: supplementary] and [Proof in Scotland of High Court Orders], "order" means any order, direction or judgment (by whatever name called)
(8) Nothing in any order of the High Court under section 11(6) of this Act prejudices any enactment or rule of law in respect of the recording of deeds relating to heritable property in Scotland or the registration of interests therein.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the new clauses. It provides for recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders made in England by the High Court under the terms of this Bill. It provides that such orders will be given effect in Scotland and will be enforceable in the same way as orders made by the Court of Session once they have been registered in that court. This general pattern of automatic recognition and enforcement upon registration is precedented in the European Judgments Convention and in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The clause also makes clear that receivers appointed under the terms of the Bill can exercise their functions in Scotland.
I shall be happy to explain in more detail if any of your Lordships wish; otherwise I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Scotland: supplementary.
.—(1) The Court of Session shall, on application made to it in accordance with rules of court for registration of an order to which section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23] applies, direct that the order shall, in accordance with such rules, be registered in that Court.
(2) Subsections (1) and (3) of section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23] of this Act and subsection (1) above are subject to any provision made by rules of court—

(a) as to the manner in which and conditions subject to which orders to which that section applies are to be enforced in Scotland;

(b) for the sisting of proceedings for enforcement of such an order;

(c) for the modification or cancellation of the registration of such an order if the order is modified or revoked or ceases to have effect.

(3) This section and section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23] are without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law as to the effect of notice or the want of it in relation to orders of ihe High Court.
(4) The Court of Session shall have the like power to make an order under section 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 (extended power to order inspection of documents etc.) in relation to proceedings brought or likely to be brought under this Act in the High Court as if those proceedings had been brought or were likely to be brought in the Court of Session.
(5) The Court of Session may, additionally, for the purpose of—

(a) assisting the achievement in Scotland of the purposes of orders to which section [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23] of this Act applies; or

(b) assisting receivers performing functions there under or for the purposes of section 8, 11 or 12 of this Act.

make such orders and do otherwise as seems to it appropriate.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this clause contains certain supplementary provisions which will assist the Court of Session to carry out its role in relation to cross-Border enforcement of the Bill's provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Inhibition and arrestment of property in Scotland.
.—(1) On the application of the prosecutor, the Court of Session may, in respect of any property in Scotland, being property to which a restraint order registered in that Court relates—

(a) where the property is heritable, grant warrant for inhibition in respect of the property against any person with an interest in it; or

(b) where the property is moveable and would, if the person entitled to it were a debtor, be arrestable property grant warrant for arrestment of the property,

and on the grant of such a warrant the enactments and rules of law relating to inhibition and arrestment shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply respectively as if the warrant had been granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the prosecutor against the person against whom the warrant for inhibition is granted or, as the case may be, whose property falls to be arrested.
(2) Section 155 of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (effective date of inhibitions) shall apply in relation to an inhibition proceeding upon a warrant under this section.
(3) In the application of section 158 of the said Act of 1868 (recall of inhibitions) to an inhibition proceeding upon a warrant under this section, the references to a particular Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session shall be construed as reference to any such Lord Ordinary.
(4) Any power of the Court of Session to recall, loose or restrict inhibitions or arrestments shall, in relation to an inhibition or arrestment proceeding upon a warrant under this section and without prejudice to any other consideration lawfully applying to the exercise of the power, be exercised with a view to achieving the purposes specified in section 13 of this Act.
(5) The Court of Session shall have power to restrict the effect of an inhibition proceeding upon a warrant under this section to particular property.
(6) The fact that such an inhibition or arrestment has been executed as respects any property shall not prejudice the exercise of a receiver's powers under or for the purposes of section 8, 11 or 12 of this Act in respect of that property.
(7) An inhibition or arrestment under this section shall cease to have effect upon the restraint order to which it relates ceasing to have effect, and, where an inhibition ceases to have effect, it shall thereupon be the duty of the prosecutor to discharge it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause gives power to the Court of Session to grant warrant for the inhibition or the arrestment of property in Scotland which is the subject of a restraint order imposed by the High Court in England and which has been registered in the Court of Session.
Inhibition and arrestment are measures of preventing the disposal of property which are peculiar to civil procedure and are effective against heritable and moveable property, respectively. They will represent useful weapons in the armoury of the courts
1112
in attacking the profits of drug trafficking crime. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Proof in Scotland of High Court Orders.
.—(1) A document purporting to be a copy of an order under or for the purposes of this Act by the High Court and to be certified as such by a proper officer of that Court shall, in Scotland, be sufficient evidence of the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to specify that a certified copy of an order made by the High Court in England would be sufficient evidence of the order in Scotland. This is necessary in particular to enable the procedure for registration in the Court of Session to be carried out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Enforcement of orders in Scotland]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 85:
Leave out Clause 16.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon the introduction of the new clauses which make it unnecessary to retain Clause 16 in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 17, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 89 and 90. These amendments are designed to implement the recommendation put forward by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place that banks should be given statutory protection against actions for breach of confidence if they volunteer to the authorities suspicions that a client's finances appear to be connected with drug trafficking.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, tabled an amendment on this matter in Committee but withdrew it pending the outcome of our consultations with the banks about the Select Committee's recommendation. I know that the idea found a good deal of sympathy among your Lordships. Indeed, we are indebted to your Lordships for the proposals put forward first by the noble and learned Lord and supported by others. Some of the features in those amendments will be apparent in the amendment now before us.
I am pleased to report that the banks were very positive in their response to the recommendation made by the Select Committee. The proposed subsection (2A) of Clause 17 is intended to give them statutory protection from any action for breach of confidence or duty arising out of their contractual obligations to their clients. However, in considering

1113
these issues we agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that there was no reason to confine the protection to banks. Like him, we wish to include other financial institutions such as building societies. Indeed, we wish to go wider and cover all who might develop suspicions that a person's finances were connected with drug trafficking but might at present feel inhibited by their contractual obligations from disclosing such suspicions. This would include not only those who handle the suspect funds but others such as auditors, accountants and employees who might notice something suspicious about the way funds were handled without themselves being involved.
When we considered this matter during Committee there was some discussion as to the appropriate rank of officer to whom information ought to be disclosed. The Government have looked at this question with very great care and have taken the view that it is unnecessary to impose any restriction here. Some people might feel more ready to disclose their suspicions if they could approach an officer with whom they have had some previous contact. The amendment therefore just refers to "a constable", which, by virtue of Clause 30, includes an officer of Customs and Excise.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the amendment that I mentioned earlier, suggested that financial institutions should have protection not only for their disclosure but for any action subsequently taken on the directions of the police. Though we were uneasy about the concept of the police giving directions to the banks, we could see very strong advantages in the banks and others being able to continue to handle a suspected trafficker's account, with the knowledge of the police or Customs, while his activities were being investigated.
The difficulty is that Clause 17 as presently drafted effectively prevents that. Once a bank's suspicions had been aroused, it would have little option but to close the suspect's account; otherwise, inevitably it would at some point commit the laundering offence. But closing the account would warn the client that he was under suspicion. The amendment would thus allow a person or institution to continue to handle the suspected trafficker's money provided that the police or Customs had been or were immediately to be informed.
I believe that these new provisions will be of considerable assistance to the investigating authorities and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sadly is not in his place tonight for his initiative in raising this matter of co-operation between the financial institutions and those investigating drug trafficking. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may make the position of those sitting on these Benches absolutely clear. From the very start of this legislation—and indeed before it—we were committed to doing all that we possibly could to assist the Government in dealing with this notoriously evil trade. Were it in connection with any other matter at all I should hesitate before coming to this Dispatch Box and saying on behalf of my noble friends that we agree to a statutory provision which is absolutely unprecedented in our criminal law.
1114
It literally means anyone. It is not even limited to a bank. It covers an employee under a contract of service which, if not expressly then by implication, says, stipulates or implies that that employee has to be loyal to his employer and does not disclose his employer's secrets; or a bank, which shares the sacred relationship that has existed over the centuries between bank and customer. All that goes out of the window of our law—if I may put it that way. In its place, if somebody has a reasonable belief that the proceeds at which he is looking—whether he is concerned with them as an accountant, auditor, bank, building society or post office—have something to do with drug trafficking, then he can inform an officer of the law. That is whether the officer is a police constable or a Customs official. If he has a reasonable belief, he will be exonerated from any contractual obligation or any confidential obligation.
I am making this utterance very seriously because it ought to be on the record. I hope that your Lordships will agree with this amendment; but I hope that it will be recorded in our Official Report for all time that this House has not allowed this amendment to become a precedent, whether in revenue law or in any other aspect of our criminal law, to a like provision.
These are exceptional circumstances, because our country—and indeed lands beyond our country—are threatened with this absolute plague, and we have to deal with it exceptionally as we have dealt with terrorism. However, this is not to be an open invitation to have these provisions copied hereafter.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing the regret of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that he is unable to be present today. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said, this was an amendment that was put down by the noble and learned Lord and supported from these Benches. Unhappily, the noble and learned Lord has an engagement which made it impossible for him to be with your Lordships, though he wants to reassure the Minister that he will do his best to be present on the Third Reading of this Bill and in the interval between now and then he will wish to consider the terms of this particular amendment, in order to ensure that as far as he is concerned in his view it is wholly adequate for its purpose.
Having said that, perhaps I may say, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—whose views on this matter I share almost completely—I am afraid that on this particular occasion I am unable to agree with him. As I think he recognises, I hope that this provision will indeed provide a precedent for further action in this area. I hope to explain why, in my view,it would be impossible to limit a provision of this sort to drug trafficking; to explain why that is so; and to express my concern that the amendment deals exclusively with the issue of drug trafficking. It does so for the simple reason that that is the issue covered by the Long Title of the Bill.

1115
Amendment No. 89 deals with the situation in which:
"a person discloses to a constable a suspicion or belief that any funds or investments are derived from or used in connection with drug trafficking".
But how does the bank manager or the manager of a building society know or have an honest belief that this money in fact relates to drug trafficking?
Indeed, what happens when he is confronted with a customer or client who comes in and deposits a large sum of money? Not so long ago in a bank in this city a sum of several hundred thousand pounds was passed over the counter in used £5 and £10 notes, and of course there was no disclosure made to anyone. The reasons why there was no disclosure was because of the principle of confidentiality. The matter only arose later as a result of subsequent police inquiries.
In the future, if a bank manager suspects that the person concerned has criminal connections, then he will have to ask himself the further question: "Do I believe that this money is part of a laundering deal in relation exclusively to drug trafficking?" He will only be protected if he forms that belief, but how in fact will the bank manager form that view? He may believe that it arises from serious crime but how will he know that it is drug trafficking?
I want to know from the Minister something which is exactly the reverse of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has asked for. Is the Minister prepared to give some form of undertaking that the Government are prepared to look at applying provisions of this character to other serious criminal offences?
I must explain why that is necessary. First, I think that it is an illusion to imagine that drug trafficking can be treated as an isolated crime: it cannot. If one asks any senior police officer with experience in this area in this country, in any other part of Western Europe or in the United States, he will say that we are confronted with the existence of highly sophisticated criminal syndicates. The operators move effortlessly from one form of serious crime to another: from drug trafficking to armed robbery, from counterfeit currency operations to large-scale fraud and then back again to drug trafficking. As I indicated, in a recent case—and there are no doubt plenty of other examples—a large sum of money was passed over the counter of a bank in London in what subsequently became clear were highly suspicious circumstances.
I repeat that what I want explained by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is how the bank manager can satisfactorily answer the question to himself, not that the money arises from a crime but that it arises in circumstances making it likely that it relates exclusively to drug trafficking. If he says that the Government are taking this step at the moment because this is a Bill dealing with drug trafficking but that they will apply the provision more widely to a limited category of serious offences when we come to the Criminal Justice Bill which will be before us in the next Session of Parliament, that would be an adequate answer. But if he says that the provision will relate exclusively to drug trafficking and there is no thought in the Government's mind at the moment that in the short term they will extend it, I must tell him that this
1116
amendment will have remarkably little effect. The bank manager will never be able satisfactorily to persuade himself that sums of money paid over in highly suspicious circumstances relate exclusively to drug trafficking. That is an issue that I very much hope he will answer today.
Arising directly from that point, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that there had been discussions and negotiations (and obviously that is so) with the banks and no doubt with the building societies too. They have agreed, of course, that they will implement such a provision, but how do they intend to monitor it and police it themselves? That raises complicated questions regarding the management of financial institutions. How will they deal with that?
Lastly—and the Minister and I have been in correspondence on this matter fairly recently—there is the question of how the legislation will apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. As he knows from the correspondence, a major criminal investigation is taking place in the Isle of Man at the moment which has direct implications for banks in this country, in the United States and in the British Virgin Islands. He indicated in his letter what the insular authorities propose to do, but I should be grateful if he would repeat that this afternoon because it is desirable to have it on the record.
I do not propose to repeat the arguments that we had on the last occasion. As the noble Lord knows, neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, nor I are convinced that the voluntary system by itself will work. We welcome the move in the direction that is now being taken, but in our view it is considerably less than half a loaf.
As the noble and learned Lord and I pointed out at the Committee stage, the situation in the United States is quite different. Under the terms of their bank secrecy legislation there is a requirement that banks in the United States should disclose any payment of over 10,000 dollars paid across the counter. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, explained why the Government at the moment were not prepared to move in that direction, though his colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, has indicated that there might be movement in the future; and that we welcome. But the American authorities—and this comes back to the point of substance—do not apply their legislation and direct it exclusively against drug traffickers. That is what we are doing in this Bill so far as the banks and financial institutions are concerned.
At first sight—and one has only had the opportunity to consider the matter over the past 24 hours—it seems to me a matter of serious concern that at the moment the Bill is drafted in this form. If it is to be effective and if banks are to be encouraged to disclose such information when they entertain substantial suspicion, what a number of us are concerned about is that they will be inhibited from disclosing it because the new clause is drawn in such a way that they will be protected only if they form an honest belief that the money that is being paid across the counter is basically the proceeds of drug trafficking. For the life of me, I do not see how they can possibly entertain that belief.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note the comments made by both noble Lords about the amendment. I

1117
particularly note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he wanted to get on record the fact that we were dealing with a measure, as has been said on many occasions, of unusual character because it is dealing with a peculiarly vile trade. I fully understand his concern about that and also his hope that the measure would not be extended to other sorts of crime, though the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not agree with him.
Let me start by answering the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and then come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in greater detail. It may be difficult for the bank to establish that money is money from drug proceeds in the absence of express information or knowledge about the suspect or his associates. But in some cases the information, or indeed circumstantial evidence, may be available. Furthermore, the bank can disclose a suspicion. Certainly that information or evidence is not needed in order for the protection offered by the amendment to apply.
There will be cases in which a bank suspects that money is the proceeds of crime but cannot say whether it is the proceeds of drug trafficking. In order to avoid the possibility of the laundering offence being committed the bank would be wise to proceed on the basis that it is drugs money, and the new protection would extend to it if it did. Although one cannot guarantee it, if the banks follow the procedure that I have outlined not only are they protected to that extent but they will also have a pretty good idea that that is where the money has come from.
8 p.m.
That leads me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and argued against by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that that proposal should not be extended in any other circumstances or, if it were, it would be a matter which would be debated hotly. I have no doubt that if it were to come forward in any other matter, that is what would happen and the noble Lord would state his ground clearly.
I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says. I do not suppose that he would expect me to say otherwise. I shall have to balance that by saying that I shall bear in mind clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said. There does not seem to be anything else that I can say because nothing has yet appeared which has that measure contained in it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I interrupt only to ask the noble Lord whether he could make a clear statement for the record that the Government understand perfectly well that this is an exceptional power in exceptional circumstances. That is all I ask for.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can say that it is an exceptional power and the circumstances are exceptional. I can also say that from time to time other exceptional circumstances arise but I cannot say precisely what they will be.
As to how the banks will monitor the disclosure system, the banks have been extremely positive in their response to the Home Affairs Committee recommendations. I am sure that they want the system
1118
to work effectively. Monitoring arrangements must primarily be a matter for the banks. I do not think that the noble Lord would expect otherwise. We could discuss the whole question of monitoring with them, and that may well be the sensible way to proceed.
As for the Channel Islands, the Home Office has kept the island authorities in close touch with the Government's reasoning behind the Bill. The islands have all given assurances that they will enact parallel legislation to ensure that so far as possible they are not used as havens for the movement of drugs or the proceeds of drugs. To that end, Orders in Council for each of the islands will be drafted as soon as the Bill has been debated by Parliament, to apply similar provisions in the islands to allow for reciprocity among the respective jurisdictions.
In the meantime, I understand that there is close co-operation between enforcement agencies here and in the islands. I saw evidence of that at the end of last year on all matters concerning drugs. There is no doubt that the islands are determined that their position as offshore finance centres should not be exploited for the laundering of money derived from drug trafficking. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the reassurance for which he is looking.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("or having reasonable grounds to suspect").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some concern was expressed in another place about the formulation of the laundering offence and, in particular, about the implications for honest bank staff who might inadvertently find themselves handling the proceeds of drug trafficking. The Government gave careful consideration to the appropriate mental element of the offence when preparing the legislation and proposed that the launderer should have to act knowing or suspecting or having reasonable grounds to suspect that the person he was assisting was or had been involved in drug trafficking.
The objective test of, "having reasonable grounds to suspect" was included because we wanted to ensure that a person would not escape conviction by turning a blind eye to circumstances which should have aroused his suspicion. However, in the light of the concern expressed in another place and in view of the seriousness of the offence and the severity of its penalties, we have concluded on reflection that it would be right to omit that objective test so that the prosecution will now have to establish actual knowledge or suspicion on the part of the defendant. It would not be right to leave open the possibility of punishing mere inadvertence. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is a very appropriate amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 18, line 11, after ("which") insert ("in whole or in part").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Clause 17(2) provides that the laundering offence will be committed

1119
not only where the property handled is itself the proceeds of drug trafficking but when it represents such proceeds directly or indirectly in the hands of the trafficker. However, property is often acquired with funds from a variety of sources. A particular asset may therefore be acquired partly with the proceeds of drug trafficking and partly from other funds. This amendment will ensure that a person can be proceeded against for the laundering offence where it can be shown that the property handled was at least partly acquired by the trafficker from the proceeds of drug trafficking. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 89 to 91:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) Where a person discloses to a constable a suspicion or belief that any funds or investments are derived from or used in connection with drug trafficking or any matter on which such a suspicion or belief is based—

(a) the disclosure shall not be treated as a breach of any restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by contract, and

(b) if he does any act in contravention of subsection (1) above and the disclosure relates to the arrangement concerned, he does not commit an offence under this section if the disclosure is made in accordance with this paragraph, that is—

(i) it is made before he does the act concerned, being an act done with the consent of the constable, or

(ii) it is made after he does the act, but is made on his initiative and as soon as it is reasonable for him to make it.").

Page 18, line 22, at end insert—
("or

(c) that—

(i) he intended to disclose to a constable such a suspicion, belief or matter as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above in relation to the arrangement, but

(ii) there is reasonable excuse for his failure to make disclosure in accordance with subsection (2A)(b) above.").

Clause 19, page 20, line 39, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Order to make evidence available]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment Nos. 92 to 102:
Page 21, line 13, after ("constable") insert ("or, in Scotland, the procurator fiscal").
Page 21, line 14 after ("judge") insert ("or, in Scotland, the sheriff").
Page 21, line 17, after ("judge") insert ("or, as the case may be, the sheriff").
Page 21, line 26, after ("judge") insert ("or, as the case may be, the sheriff").
Page 22, line 9, after ("judge") insert ("or, as the case may be, the sheriff").
Page 22, line 11, after ("constable") insert ("or, in Scotland, the procurator fiscal").
Page 22, line 14, after ("Rules") insert ("or, as respects Scotland, rules of court").
Page 22, line 18, after ("order") insert ("or a Circuit judge").
Clause 21, page 22, line 37, after ("constable") insert ("or, in Scotland, the procurator fiscal").
Clause 21, line 38, after ("judge") insert ("or, in Scotland, the sheriff").
Clause 21, line 40, after ("judge") insert ("or, as the case may be, the sheriff").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments make the adaptations to Clauses 20 to 22 that are necessary for their operation in Scotland in order to ensure that investigations into drug trafficking can be pursued effectively throughout Great Britain. It is necessary to ensure that the Scottish authorities are equipped with adequate powers to undertake any investigations required.
The amendments to Clauses 20 and 21 contained in Amendments Nos. 92 to 102 will therefore enable the procurator fiscal to apply to a sheriff for an order to make information available to the police or for a warrant empowering the police to search for material if that is necessary in connection with an investigation into drug trafficking. This statutory provision is required because the existing common law powers of the police in Scotland would be unlikely to enable such wide investigations to be made at a sufficiently early stage in the investigation.
It is of course essential in cases of suspected drug trafficking that the police should be able to act at an early stage not only to gather information which may be needed as evidence in the proceedings but to identify assets which may need to be made subject to restraint orders.
The amendment to Clause 22 and Amendment No. 109 provide Scottish definitions for certain terms used in Clauses 20 and 21. As it stands, Clause 22 applies definitions of terms by reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that Act does not extend to Scotland.
The only point that I would raise on this matter is that we have not attempted to provide an exclusion equivalent to "excluded material" for there appears to be no similar exclusion at common law in Scotland for police powers of search. It seems inappropriate therefore to provide one especially for the purposes of these provisions. I would therefore, with the leave of the House, beg to move Amendments Nos. 92 to 102.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 107:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert—
("(b) that the conditions in subsection (2A) below are fulfilled, or
(c) that the conditions in subsection (3) below are fulfilled.
(2A) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(b) above are—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has carried on or has benefited from drug trafficking, and").

Page 23, line 1, leave out ("subsection (3) of that section") and insert ("section 20(4)(6) and (c) of this Act").
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("but") and insert ("and (c)").
Page 23, line 14, leave out from ("material") to end of line 15.
Page 23, line 16, leave out ("Those conditions") and insert ("The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(c) above").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these are all drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Sections 20 and 21: supplementary provisions, 1985]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment Nos. 108 and 109:
Page 24, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below,").
Page 24, line 12, at end insert—
(" (3) As respects Scotland, in sections 20 and 21 of this Act the references to excluded material shall be omitted and—
"items subject to legal professional privilege" means—

(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client;

(b) communications made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of these proceedings,

being communications which would in legal proceedings be protected from disclosure by virtue of any rule of law relating to the confidentiality of communications; and
"premises" includes any place and, in particular includes—

(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;

(b) any offshore installation within the meaning of section 1 of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971: and

(c) any tent or movable structure."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment and Amendment No. 109. I beg to move the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Disclosure of information held by government departments]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 24, line 13, leave out from ("below") to ("the") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 112 to 119. This group of amendments relates to procedures set out in Clause 23 for the High Court to order the disclosure of information held by government departments. At present, such an order can only be made after proceedings have been instituted against a person for a drug trafficking offence. One of the purposes for which disclosure may he required is to facilitate the restraint of the suspect's assets. As a result of amendments to the Bill in another place, the High Court in certain circumstances will be able to make a restraint order before proceedings have been instituted. In such cases it would be convenient if the High Court was able to hear applications for disclosure of information at the same time. The proposed amendments will enable it to do so.
As presently drafted, the Bill allows the High Court to order material to be disclosed direct to the receiver or to authorise disclosure to the prosecuting authority but contains no guidance on the circumstances in which the receiver or prosecutor may in turn disclose that material to others. The amendments that we propose seek to set out the circumstances in which receivers or prosecutors can pass on information disclosed to them under Clause 23. First, the High Court will have to give the department concerned the opportunity to make representations before it authorises the disclosure of material to the receiver. The receiver will then be able to make further disclosure to the extent necessary for the exercise of his functions under the Act.
Where the court has authorised disclosure to the prosecutor, the information may be further disclosed for the purposes of functions relating to drug trafficking. This is intended to allow the disclosure of information that might be useful to the police or Customs in connection with a drug trafficking investigation whether or not that investigation relates to the same case. The change proposed to subsection (7) would bring the obligation imposed on the person who receives the order for disclosure into line with equivalent provisions in other recent legislation, notably Section 197 of the Insolvency Act 1985. I believe that these amendments serve an important purpose by clarifying the way in which the procedure set out in Clause 23 is to operate and the purposes for which the information obtained is to be used. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 24, line 16, leave out ("prosecuting authority") and insert ("prosecutor").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 119:
Page 24, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert ("produced to the court within such period as the court may specify.
(1A) The power to make an order under subsection (1) above is exercisable if—

(a) the powers conferred on the court by sections 8(1) and 9(1) of this Act are exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) of section 7 of this Act, or

(b) those powers are exercisable by virtue of subsection (2) of that section and the court has made a restraint or charging order which has not been discharged;

but where the power to make an order under subsection (1) above is exercisable by virtue only of paragraph (b) above, subsection (3) of section 7 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of sections 8 and 9 of this Act.").
Page 24, line 33, leave out ("disclosure") and insert ("production").
Page 24, line 37, leave out ("disclosure") and insert ("production").
Page 24, line 38, leave out ("disclosure") and insert ("material").
Page 24, line 38, after ("to") insert ("contain information that would").
Page 24, line 40, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 7 on page 25 and insert (under sections 8 or 11 of this Act or in pursuance of a charging order.
(4) The court may by order authorise the disclosure to such a receiver of any material produced under subsection (1) above or any part of such material; but the court shall not make an order under this subsection unless a reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer of the department to make representations to the court.
(5) Material disclosed in pursuance of an order under subsection (4) above may, subject to any conditions continued in the order, be further disclosed for the purposes of the functions under this Act of the receiver or the Crown Court.
(5A) The court may by order authorise the disclosure to a person mentioned in subsection (5B) below of any material produced under subsection (1) above or any part of such material; but the court shall not make an order under this subsection unless").
Page 25, line 13, at end insert—
(" (5B) The persons referred to in subsection (5A) above are—

(a) any member of a police force,

(b) any member of the Crown Prosecution Service, and

1123

(c) any officer within the meaning of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

(5C) Material disclosed in pursuance of an order under subsection (5A) above may, subject to any conditions contained in the order, be further disclosed for the purposes of functions relating to drug trafficking.
(5D) Material may be produced or disclosed in pursuance of this section notwithstanding any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise.").
Page 25, line 22, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
(" (7) the person on whom such an order is served—

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the officer concerned, and

(b) if the order is not brought to that officer's attention within the period referred to in subsection (1) above, shall report the reasons for the failure to the court:

and it shall also be the duty of any other officer of the department in receipt of the order to take such steps as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26 [Prohibition of supply etc. of articles for administering controlled drugs]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 124:
Page 27, line 9, after ("used") insert ("in circumstances where the administration is unlawful").
Page 27, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 17 and insert—
(" (3) A person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used to prepare a controlled drug for administration by any person to himself or another believing that the article is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful is guilty of an offence.
(3A) For the purposes of this section, any administration of a controlled drug is unlawful except.
(a)").
Page 27, line 20, leave out ("would not be") and insert ("is not").
Page 27, line 22, leave out ("in").
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("would not be") and insert ("is not").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these amendments en bloc it may be convenient to your Lordships if I speak also to Amendment No. 140. Clause 26 makes it an offence to supply items that are to be used for the administration of a controlled drug. During discussion of this clause in Committee, I mentioned that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was considering the possibility of extending the scope of the new offence to cover items used to prepare drugs for administration as well as those used simply for administering the drugs. I was grateful for the support that a number of your Lordships expressed for the idea of extending the new offence in this way. I should now like to propose that we do indeed extend the scope of Clause 26 to cover items used in preparing controlled drugs for administration.
As I said in Committee, the cocaine kits which were the immediate cause of public concern usually contain only one item that is used for administering the drug. All the others are used for preparing it. If that one item were to be removed from the kit and sold separately, it would be possible to offer for sale a cocaine preparation kit that would be just as repugnant as the cocaine kits themselves. The burden will of course remain on the prosecution to prove that the supplier believed that the articles he was selling would be used in connection with drug misuse in order to safeguard the position of honest shopkeepers. The draft clause adopted in
1124
Committee provided a defence for a supplier who believed on reasonable grounds that the items he was supplying would be used for medical purposes.
We are concerned that putting the onus on the defendant to show that he held such a belief would cause difficulties for those who make or distribute equipment commonly used in the lawful preparation of a controlled drug. A manufacturer or wholesaler particularly would have no belief about the ultimate use of any individual item supplied by him. So the defence would be difficult to establish. We are therefore now proposing that the burden should be on the prosecution to establish that the article was supplied in the belief that the ensuing administration of the drug would be unlawful. Where the articles in question are cocaine kits and similar items, such belief should not be difficult for the prosecution to establish because such items are unlikely to be used for medical purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, these are sensible and useful amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Power to inspect Land Register etc.
.—(1) The Chief Land Registrar (in this section referred to as "the registrar") shall, on an application under subsection (2) or (4) below made in relation to a person specified in the application or to property so specified, provide the applicant with any information kept by the registrar under the Land Registration Act 1925 which relates to the person or property so specified.
(2) An application may be made by—

(a) any police officer not below the rank of superintendent.

(b) any Crown Prosecutor, or

(c) any person commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise not below the rank of senior executive officer,

and on an application under this subsection an appropriate certificate shall be given to the registrar.
(3) In subsection (2) above, "appropriate certificate" means a certificate—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is information kept by the registrar which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other information) to an investigation into drug trafficking, or

(b) that—

(i) a person specified in the certificate has committed or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person so specified has committed a drug trafficking offence, and

(ii) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is information kept by the registrar which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other information) to an investigation into whether the person so specified has benefited from drug trafficking or in facilitating the recovery of the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking.

(4) An application may be made by a receiver appointed under section 8 or 11 of this Act and on an application under this subsection there shall be given to the registrar—

(a) a document certified by the proper officer of the court to be a true copy of the order appointing the receiver, and

(b) a certificate that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is information kept by the registrar which is likely to facilitate the exercise of the powers conferred on the receiver in respect of the person or property specified in the application.

(5) The reference in subsection (1) above to the provision of information is a reference to its provision in documentary form.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill contains a number of provisions designed to help trace and

1125
recover the proceeds of drug trafficking. This proposed new clause adds to them. Information held by the Land Registry may well be helpful in identifying the assets of drug traffickers. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service may already obtain access to such information for the purposes of investigating crime and recovering stolen property. This clause extends those powers to officers of Customs and Excise where the investigation relates to drug trafficking and also to receivers appointed under the Bill where the information is likely to help them in the restraint or realisation of a trafficker's assets. The proposed new clause provides one more way in which the extent of the trafficker's property can be ascertained. It will therefore contribute to the effectiveness of the confiscation order. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall not detain the House, but it is remarkable to me that whereas this confidential information by bankers and other financial institutions can be given to a constable, when one wants to make an application to the chief land registrar for a copy of entries it cannot be made by anyone below the rank of superintendent. I merely smile and sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Interpretation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 126 and 127:
Page 28, leave out lines 15 to 18.
Page 28, leave out lines 23 and 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these two amendments en bloc I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 132 and 134. These amendments relate to the interpretation clause of the Bill. In part, they are consequential on the amendments agreed earlier and introduce various new terms to the clause. We are also proposing the insertion of a list of expressions used in the Bill which we hope will provide clear signposting round this complex legislation.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 29, line 41, after ("personal") insert (", heritable or movable").
Page 29, line 42, after ("intangible") insert ("or incorporeal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments provide the necessary modifications to the definition of property in the Bill to take account of the terminology of Scots law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 135:
Page 29, leave out lines 43 and 44.
Page 30, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Page 30,leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
("(1A) The expressions listed in the left hand column below are respectively defined or (as the case may be) fall to be
1126
construed in accordance with the provisions of this Act listed in the right hand column in relation to those expressions.

Expression

Relevant provisions

Benefited from drug trafficking

Section 1(3)

Charging order

Section 9(2)

Confiscation order

Section 1(8)

Dealing with property

Section 8(5)

Defendant

Section 1(8)

Gift caught by this Act

Section 5(10)

Making a gift

Section 5(11)

Proceeds of drug trafficking

Section 2(1)(a)

Realisable property

Section 5(1)

Restraint order

Section 8(1)

Value of gift, payment or reward

Section 5

Value of proceeds of drug trafficking

Section 2(1)(b)

Value of property

Section 5(7).").

Page 30, line 22, at end insert—
("(6A) References to property held by a person include a reference to property vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, permanent or interim trustee within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or liquidator.
(6B) References to an interest held by a person beneficially in property include a reference to an interest which would be held by him beneficially if the property were not so vested.").
Page 30, line 26, leave out subsection (8).
Clause 31, page 31, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) In section 49(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (protection of certain interests by notice) after "Charging Orders Act 1979" there is inserted "or the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amend ments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Minor amendments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 31, line 41, at end insert—
("(2A) After subsection (4) of section 18 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 there is inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) This section does not apply as respects the enforcement in Scotland of orders made by the High Court in England and Wales under or for the purposes of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986." ").
Page 32, line 4, at end insert—
("(4) Section 55(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (discharge of debtor not to release him from liabilities in respect of fines etc.) shall have effect as if the reference to a fine included a reference to a confiscation order").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments make minor adjustments to existing legislation applying to Scotland consequential upon the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 138 and 139:
Page 32, leave out line 14 and insert—
("(4) This Act has effect in Scotland as follows—

(a) sections 8 (but not subsection (5A) or (6)), 11, 12 and 23 (but not subsection (5D), (6) or (7)) extend also to Scotland, but only as provided by sections [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23] and [Scotland: supplementary] of this Act;

(b)

section 8(5A) and (6);

section 13;

1127

sections [Bankruptcy of defendant etc.] and [Sequestration in Scotland of defendant etc.];

section [Receivers: supplementary provisions] (1);

sections 20 to 22;

section 23(5D), (6) and (7);

section 26;

section 30, so far as relating to other provisions of this Act extending to Scotland;

section 31(2), (2A) and (4); and

this section, so far as relating to other provisions of this Act extending to Scotland,

extend also to Scotland.

(c) sections [Recognition and enforcement in Scotland of orders and functions under sections 8, 11, 12 and 23], [Scotland: supplementary], [Inhibition and arrestment in Scotland] and [Proof in Scotland of High Court order] extend to Scotland only.

(5)").
Page 32, line 15, leave out ("Scotland and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments apply to the extent clause of the Bill specifying the provisions of the Bill that apply to Scotland.
I should like to point out that in one respect these amendments are now incomplete. The House has agreed today to insert a new subsection (2A) into Clause 17, sub-paragraph (ii) of which protects from actions for breach of confidence persons who disclose their suspicions that funds or investments are derived from drug trafficking. I would wish that the paragraph—I think it is paragraph (a)—be extended to Scotland. With the permission of the House, the necessary additional amendment will be tabled for Third Reading. I move the two Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 en bloc.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, since we are coming to the end of our proceedings, may I ask an wholly unreasonable question, for which I shall not ask for an answer tonight? As these provisions are being extended to Scotland, I cannot recall whether we have discussed the situation in relation to Northern Ireland banks. I do not press the point tonight but no doubt the matter is being looked at and no doubt it has already been dealt with.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, Section 26 extends the relevant provisions of the Act to Northern Ireland. I had better let the noble Lord have details. But I believe that it does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 140:
Line 5, after ("drugs") insert ("or used to prepare a controlled drug for adminstration").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last but not least and definitely consequential, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Exeter City Council Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Ipswich Port Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Gull Island Protection Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.

  PRISON SERVICE ORGANISATION: REPORT
  PRISON SERVICE ORGANISATION: REPORT
  SEISMIC EVENTS: UN DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE AD HOC GROUP
  SEISMIC EVENTS: UN DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE AD HOC GROUP
  ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS: SEA-BASED WEAPONS
  ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS: SEA-BASED WEAPONS
  ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS: SOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS
  ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS: SOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS
  IRAQ/IRAN WAR: PEACE INITIATIVES
  IRAQ/IRAN WAR: PEACE INITIATIVES
  SINAI MULTINATIONAL FORCE AND OBSERVERS: UK PARTICIPATION
  SINAI MULTINATIONAL FORCE AND OBSERVERS: UK PARTICIPATION
  UGANDA: UK MILITARY ASSISTANCE
  UGANDA: UK MILITARY ASSISTANCE
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: UK LAW AND THE SEABED
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: UK LAW AND THE SEABED
  NORTH SEA OIL: FISCAL POLICY
  NORTH SEA OIL: FISCAL POLICY