Sitting of 5 February 1987

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 February.

  GRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Grampian Regional Council (Harbours): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 11 February and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Metropolitan Police Precept
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage above the rate of inflation the cumulative increase in the Metropolitan police precept has been since 1979.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): No direct comparison is possible of precepts from 1979 to 1986 because of changes to the rate support grant arrangements in 1981 and 1983. The ratepayers' contribution to Metropolitan police expenditure was £174 million in 1981–82, rising to £258 million in 1986–87. This represents an increase of just over 15·5 per cent, above the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Cohen: Did not London's local authority associations recently tell the Home Secretary that they thought that the Metropolitan police accounting and
    1124
    financial management systems were archaic, that there was little budgetary control and that the basic financial management system was insufficient to make sensible decisions? When will the Minister stop neglecting this matter and carry out his job of ensuring that value is obtained for the money handed out by London taxpayers and ratepayers? Is he aware that if he does not do that the crime rate will continue to worsen?
    Mr. Hurd: Value for money is extremely important in Metropolitan police expenditure, as in that of any other police authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Metropolitan police keep in close touch with London local authorities and are always seeking means of obtaining greater value for money and, indeed, of getting police officers on to the streets.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Metropolitan police on their magnificent efforts, in apprehending the rapists in the Ealing vicarage case? It took them 10 days and nights to achieve that, and they have not had the support that they should have from the courts.
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, I will indeed do that.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary consider increasing the Metropolitan police precept so that the special branch can be trained to draft search warrants properly?
    Mr. Hurd: That has been amply debated in the House. I have nothing to add to what has already been said.
    Mr. Marlow: What would happen to the cost of the Metropolitan police if they were put under the democratic supervision of Mr. Bernie Grant, and who could then expect a knock on the door at 3 am?
    Mr. Hurd: It would be a disaster for the Metropolitan police and, indeed, for other police forces if the Labour party were ever in a position to implement the policy that it has now clearly set out, that police forces should be under the supervision of local councils.

    Police Officers (Compensation)
    Mrs. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1985 and 1986.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): In the financial year 1985–86 the board resolved a total of 1,755 cases involving injuries to police officers on duty, including cases in which no award was made.
    Mrs. Golding: I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the talks that the Minister has been having with the Police Federation to try to enable benefits to be continued. Will the Minister also have talks with the train drivers' union, as members of that union suffer nervous shock as a result of the increase in suicides on the railways these days? Will the Minister assure the House that he will have such talks soon, and, when he does, will he remember that but for the actions of two people closely related to him who were also railwaymen he would not grace the House with his presence today?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady refers to my grandfathers. As she well knows, both were railway workers and

    1125
    obviously I am proud of that fact. I shall certainly be willing to see Mr. Buckton and his colleagues. My difficulty is that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is intended to deal with criminal injuries arising from crimes of violence. However tragic the consequences for a number of train drivers, it is difficult to see the nervous shock that they suffer as a result of the thoroughly unpleasant experience of hitting suicides as being quite in that context. That is why I do not want to hold out too many hopes, but if the unions wish to see me I shall, of course, see them.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk of injury to policemen would be very much less if Opposition Members could restrain their warlike friends at Wapping?
    Mr. Mellor: In the last incident at Wapping, 150 police officers were injured. I hope that anyone with any influence over those who do that sort of thing will call for restraint.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that the Criminal Justice Bill, as drafted, effectively excludes many police officers from making claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme and that, furthermore, the recent lifting of the lower threshold for eligibility from £400 to £550 will debar some 28 per cent. of all claimants, including many police officers? Is not the truth that the Government care little about victims, whether they be ordinary citizens or policemen?
    Mr. Mellor: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, since in the next financial year we shall be spending, in real terms, three and a half times as much as the Labour Government did on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the police, in the Bill as drafted there is one marginal but significant difference concerning the rights of the police. We have agreed to correct it so that the Bill will reflect the present position regarding the police. On the question of the lower limit, everyone agrees that there should be a threshold. Around 20 per cent. of those who are eligible at present will not be eligible under the new threshold. The new threshold is equivalent to approximately three times the weekly national average wage. That was the basis upon which the scheme was first established in 1964.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever the figure, it is insufficient to compensate the police of this country for their dedication when they stand up to gunmen, armed robbers and the people who man the picket lines at Wapping and elsewhere?
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is one of the proudest claims of this Government that we have markedly improved the pay and conditions of the police to compensate them for the very real risks inherent in carrying out their vital task.

    Voluntary Bodies (Funding)
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from voluntary bodies concerning their funding; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: The Home Office makes grants to more than 100 voluntary organisations and to about 350 hostels and local bodies providing accommodation or facilities for
    1126
    offenders. We have received 19 representations about funding in the current financial year. We have been able to offer additional resources in eight cases and a further five cases are still under consideration.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Leaving aside the important problem of the lack of adequate resources for some of these organisations, does the Minister agree that there is a lack of consistency in the way in which all Government Departments process applications from and give grants to voluntary organisations? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will be prepared to review the procedures used by his Department and others so that a common, logical and consistent system can be applied to all Departments and all voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Mellor: I can speak only for the Home Office, but we are always willing to look at the basis upon which we make grants. Indeed, we have a close relationship with the various vital bodies to which we make grants. Our willingness always to reconsider the level of funding in appropriate circumstances is testimony to the free interchange of information between us.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should back those bodies which are very successfully providing alternatives to custody for young offenders? Is he aware that many local authority social services departments resent the success that such bodies are enjoying in providing intermediate treatment and that local authority funding is therefore being withdrawn? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to see whether a more secure future can be provided for these very valuable bodies'?
    Mr. Mellor: I know of the local case that concerns my hon. Friend. The Government have put some £15 million of new resources into intermediate treatment schemes, and it is regrettable that the schemes are not receiving the support that they should from some local authorities in taking up that funding, even when the schemes have shown themselves to he successful. It would be regrettable if the Government were left to pick up the bill on a continuing basis when local authorities, which serve local communities, have everything to gain from these facilities being in existence in their areas.

    Greater Manchester (Police Car Pursuits)
    Mr. Litherlandasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester as to the number of deaths and serious accidents resulting from police car pursuits in the Greater Manchester area during the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The chief constable of Greater Manchester has informed me that from I June 1986 to 31 December 1986 his force's police vehicls were involved in one fatal accident, in which a person was killed, I I accidents causing serious injury, and 82 accidents in which there was slight injury. These figures include all accidents, not just those arising from pursuits. Information for the rest of 1986 and earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but with effect from the beginning of 1987 arrangements have been made for collecting statistics on police vehicle accidents involving death or serious injury in all force areas.
    Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that in a recent car pursuit in the centre of Manchester there was a tragic loss of life—that of a young, innocent 17-year-old, Tracey McCaig? Will he consider issuing strict instructions to the chief constable of Greater Manchester to adhere to the policy in the police drivers' manual, which says:
    "No emergency is so urgent as to justify an accident"?
    We are talking about deaths. When will the Minister accept responsibility and take some action?
    Mr. Hogg: The death of Tracey McCaig was a tragedy, and I know that the House will wish to express its sympathy to her family and friends. However, it is necessary to put it into perspective. In 1985, in the Greater Manchester area, there was a fleet of about 1,000 vehicles which covered about 20 million miles and were involved in a total of 1,583 accidents. Nevertheless, that accident was a tragedy.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: As the problem of police pursuits is not confined to Greater Manchester—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, the original question is.

    Police (Firearms)
    Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to increase the training available to authorised firearms users in the police force.
    Mr. Hurd: I have accepted the conclusion of the Home Office working group on police use of firearms that the recommended length of initial and refresher training for authorised firearms officers is sufficient.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that on all occasions only fully trained officers will be issued with firearms? There are increasing numbers of occasions when firearms are issued. Would it not be better to have longer, more specialised training, and fewer people involved in the issue of firearms?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady may wish to look at the summary of the working group's proposals, which I have put in the Library. I entirely agree with her—it is important that the number of authorised firearms officers be reduced. There was a reduction of 21 per cent. between the end of 1983 and the end of 1985, and the report points to a further reduction. In addition, the number of occasions on which the police have drawn firearms has also been declining.
    Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters is not necessarily the amount of training but the type of training? Does he also agree that it is important that people of the right calibre are selected for firearms training in the first place?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the two essential points—the selection of officers in the first place and the content of the training. The authority required for the drawing and use of firearms is also an important element.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: The Home Secretary will be aware of the unanswered questions surrounding the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce in my constituency. Will he fulfil his commitment of 11 November 1985 to the Lambeth police
    1128
    consultative group that he would publish the findings of the inquiry if disciplinary charges were not brought against Inspector Lovelock?
    Mr. Hurd: It is not for me to publish those findings. When I wrote to Mr. Parkinson the letter that the hon. Gentleman has seen, the Police Complaints Authority was intending to publish a summary of the investigation which took place under its supervision. Since then, Inspector Lovelock has faced trial on these matters. As a result, the PCA decided that it would not re-issue a lot of material that had come out in the trial but would issue a press release instead. The hon. Gentleman has seen that press release.
    If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, I shall be glad to arrange for him to meet Sir Cecil Clothier. In response to several press reports, I should like to make it clear, regarding the possible consumption of alcohol tine day before, that I understand that the investigation showed that Inspector Lovelock had had one drink at a retirement party the evening before the raid on Mrs. Groce's home.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it not an absolute disgrace that innocent people can he gunned down by policemen on the street or even in their homes and the police seem to get off scot-free? In view of the experience of even more violent societies, such as the United States of America, is it not likely that the increasing practice of policemen in this country using guns will lead to an increase in the number of criminals carrying guns? Will not the resultant violent and vicious circle lead to even more innocent people being injured or killed?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and prejudiced on all points. There have been at least two well-reported cases recently in which police officers have been prosecuted in the courts for the use of firearms. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his basic facts. It is important that those facts should be understood. The number of authorised firearms officers in the police service has been declining sharply. The number of operations on which police officers have drawn firearms has also been declining in recent years. The total number of occasions on which the police used firearms in England and Wales in 1985 was seven. The total for New York city in the same year was well over 200.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Home Secretary answer this specific question? Is it not true that the report which recommended no increase in training did so because the number of times that officers were authorised to draw arms had riot significantly increased? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, given the consequences of the recent killings for individuals, society and the police, that is riot a satisfactory argument for not increasing training and is entirely unacceptable to the House?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). What is crucial is not the length of training, but its content and effectiveness. I am willing to discuss this point with the hon. Gentleman or with any other hon. Member at any time. The content and effectiveness of the training, together with the selection of officers, are crucial. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his respect for accuracy, will not pursue the legend that the use of firearms by police is increasing.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous and dangerous nonsense to suggest that criminals carry guns because policemen carry guns? If it were not for the criminals, policemen would not need to carry guns. The attitude "It was a wicked dog—it bit me when I kicked it" is outrageous. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude expressed by the Opposition encourages the need for policemen to carry guns?
    Mr. Hurd: One of the reassuring things which I have found as Home Secretary is the conviction among all sections of the police—from the chief officers to the Police Federation—that they want to adhere as closely as possible to the tradition of unarmed British policing, and I entirely agree with them. Of course there are occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has said, when armed criminals or armed suspects are about and the police need to draw and protect themselves with firearms. The police and I are determined that those occasions should be kept to a minimum.

    Licensing Laws
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend the licensing laws.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The Government believe that there is a strong case for some relaxation of the restrictions on licensing hours and are carefully considering what measures would be appropriate.
    Mr. MacKay: As the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), which sensibly sought to amend the licensing laws, was widely regarded in the country but was effectively talked out last Friday, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it would be right and proper for the House to have an opportunity to vote on such legislation in the very near future?
    Mr. Waddington: I know of the disappointment felt by many hon. Members when the Bill was talked out and that many hon. Members recognise that the time has come for some reform of the licensing laws.
    Mr. Canavan: Time, gentlemen, please.
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will know, however, that whether the Government give time for a private Member's measure is nothing to do with me.
    Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the licensing laws are archaic and out of date and that if the Bill had been given a fair wind last Friday it would probably have been passed by the House? Does he agree that it is nonsense for drinking on controlled premises to be so restrictive when people can now buy drinks at off-licences, supermarkets and so many other places? That has created a situation which worries many hon. Members. Will the right hon.and learned Gentleman ensure that at the earliest possible opportunity there is some alteration in the laws to make them more sensible?
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his views so forcefully and it is nice to know that there is strong support from hon. Members on both sides of the House for some necessary reform of the licensing laws. However, I cannot help the hon.
    1130
    Gentleman further than I have done already, because thought must he given to the precise measure of reform that should be introduced.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. However, is he aware that more than 160 right hon. and hon. Members were present on Friday to support the Licensing (Amendment) Bill? Does he agree that the climate of opinion is now such that the status quo is no longer an option? Does he further agree that it would be reasonable, before the Second Reading debate on 27 March, for the Government to announce either that they will give a modest allocation of time to the private Member's Bill, or make an absolute commitment to their own legislation at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Waddington: I cannot add to what I said a few minutes ago about whether the Government should provide time for that measure. However, I am quite sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) for having introduced that measure. I do not believe that there are many hon. Members who feel that he has wasted his time. It is as a result of the efforts of people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that there has been a movement in public opinion over the months and that we have got nearer the time when that reform will come about.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister distinguish between flexible hours and extended hours and advise the House whether he favours the former more than the latter?
    Mr. Waddington: I mentioned earlier that no decision has been reached as to the precise nature of any legislation. Our preferred system would not impose heavy work loads on the courts and police, but it would be important to maintain proper safeguards on licensed outlets and protect the public from added noise and nuisance. Obviously, one must bear in mind the risk of added noise and nuisance when making a decision as to what the latest closing hour should be.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. and learned Friend publish, in the appropriate place, the overwhelming market research that his Department has undertaken to show that it is in the public interest to reform the present antiquated laws, which were brought in 71 years ago in wartime conditions?
    Mr. Waddington: There has been a fair amount of research into that matter. No doubt my hon. Friend and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House, will have read the results of the study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into what has happened in Scotland since the change in the law there in 1976. Any impartial person would conclude from that study that no deleterious results had occurred in Scotland as a result of the liberalisation that was introduced there.
    Mr. Mason: In view of the Minister's determined support—he is obviously speaking on behalf of the Government—will he be more specific and tell the House what he intends to do? Will he allow more time for the private Member's Bill, or will he introduce legislation this Session?
    Mr. Waddington: I have already told the House, in reply to questions from other hon. Members, that the

    1131
    question whether the Government should give time for a private Member's Bill is not a matter for me. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have never given time for any private Member's Bill during the course of this Parliament, so he may think it unlikely that the Government will give time for this measure. I thought that I had been fairly forthcoming in answer to all these questions, and I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman more about the precise timing of the introduction of any measure which may be introduced.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the call "Time, ladies and gentlemen please" is well overdue for the reform of these antiquated laws? Does he agree that the area that we have the honour to represent, Lancashire, if no other, is firmly and forcefully in favour of change, and change now?
    Mr. Waddington: Lancashire folk are sensible folk, and I have no doubt that they are in favour of reform.

    Fraud
    Mr. Tom Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fraud cases have been investigated by the Metropolitan police's fraud investigation squad; and how many have resulted in conviction.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understand from the Commissioner that 511 new investigations were undertaken by the Metropolitan police company fraud investigation squad during 1986. Information about the number of investigations which result in conviction is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that it shows the ever-increasing number of fraud cases that are now coming to the surface—some of them extremely complex and many of them in the City? Against the background, can he give an assurance that the police will have the required number of personnel and facilities to enable them to tackle this growing amount of crime?
    Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are already extremely worried about this and for that reason have introduced through the Criminal Justic Bill provisions to give a new serious fraud office extensive powers of investigation. We have also greatly increased the powers of the courts to try such cases. I hope that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's congratulations and support.
    Mr. Dykes: May I congratulate the Government on the measures taken so far, but, sadly, also say that the fraud squad still is relatively overwhelmed? Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider the need to increase yet again the number of personnel and to intensify their traning in depth?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is always right to draw attention to these matters, but the figures are perhaps not so discouraging as he thinks. In 1985, for example, the police cleared up about 68 per cent. of all recorded cases of fraud and of the cases tried at the Crown Court involving fraud, acquittals accounted for only about 11 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: If the special branch and the Metropolitan police have so many people that they can clear out the
    1132
    archives of the BBC in Scotland, why can they not get down to the City of London, which is just round the corner, and clean out the crooks there? If there is a problem with personnel, why not transfer a few from one force to the other?
    Mr. Hogg: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot take serious matters seriously.
    Mr. Jessel: Can more accountants and lawyers be recruited, as I ask in question No. 47?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a bit unfair.
    Mr. Hogg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give an assurance on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that sufficient extra officers will be seconded to the City and the commercial fraud department to ensure, not only that existing fraud investigations can continue apace, but that there will be sufficient officers to bring to trial quickly those who may be guilty of frauds in connection with the affairs of Guinness plc?
    Mr. Hogg: There is no evidence at the moment that the relevant police squads are undermanned.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department's planning assumptions for civil protection allow for enemy use of chemical weapons against United Kingdom military bases and other targets.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Yes, such use cannot entirely be ruled out.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the acceptance of the fact that targets may be attacked by a chemical weapon, has he any plans to arrange for the issue of advice to the public?
    Mr. Hogg: I endeavour to be as helpful to my hon. Friend and to the House as possible. We are reviewing these matters to see what additional precautions are required.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department expects to publish the crime figures for 1986.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables on the change in the number of burglaries and thefts in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available compared with the totals in the 12 months ended March 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: The main crime figures for the first three quarters of 1986 have already been published. Those for the fourth quarter should be published in March These include the number of burglaries and thefts recorded by police forces. Sixty-six per cent. more burglaries and 40 per cent. more thefts were recorded in the 12 months ending in September 1986 than in the 12 months before March 1979.
    Mr. Mikardo: Does the Minister not find it strange that the effects of the policies of his Government, who claim to

    1133
    be better at law and order than anyone else, are first, an ever-increasing rise in crime, and secondly, a pathetically poor performance in clear-up rate?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly I would not claim that we have solved the crime problem. We can say that we have strengthened the police. There are 10,000 more police officers than there were. We have improved their equipment and their co-operation with the community, as the 18,000 neighbourhood watch schemes show. We have given them necessary powers over terrorism. All this would be undermined and perhaps destroyed if the police forces were subject to what, according to The Times, is the original and authentic wording of Labour party proposals and put under the supervision of local councils.
    Mr. Lofthouse: The Home Secretary will have heard his hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answer to an earlier question today, talk about the improvement in policemen's pay under this Government. Will the Home Secretary, as the person responsible for law and order and crime in Britain, tell the House why he believes that there has been an increase in the crime rate and a decrease in the detection rate during the lifetime of this Government?
    Mr. Hurd: Because during the lifetime of this Government, as during the lifetime of the previous Government, the rate of recorded crime in Britain has continued to rise steadily. As regards the crimes which are perhaps of most concern to people—offences of violence against the person—although the figures have continued to rise, they have risen at half the rate at which they rose during the lifetime of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Metropolitan police and police forces generally have a very good and improving clear-up rate for serious crime? Does he further agree that the great problem is with the 95 per cent. of property crime, which is now being addressed by crime prevention work? Does he agree that that is at last beginning to prove successful?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. I have given the figure for the neighbourhood watch schemes, 18,000, which is a record. I would point out — my hon. Freind already knows this — that, in relation to burglaries, which the second question covered, one quarter of burglaries in Britain do not involve forced entry. Either a widow or a door has been left unsecured. That shows the enormous scope for crime prevention, and we are concentrating on it.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Home Secretary agree that this Government have made major cuts in real crime prevention work, such as work to improve housing which is down by two thirds, and on work to light our streets better, where rate support grant to local authorities has been cut? Are not those the main reasons why crime has increased in this country?
    Mr. Hurd: One thing on which I would have thought everyone who studies the Audit Commission report would agree is that simply putting money into traditional local authority schemes is not the right way in which to achieve greater security. The hon. Gentleman is right, not in saying that there should be more local government spending, but in saying that we should target our spending more effectively on street lighting, caretakers on housing estates and on the proper design of housing. That is exactly what we are doing.
    Mr. Dorrell: Is it not essential, if we are to maintain the efficiency of the police, that chief constables maintain full responsibility for the operational control of men under their command? Is it not impossible to square that necessity with any concept of democratic supervision? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Labour party must choose between an effective police force and its commitment to democratic supervision?
    Mr. Hurd: There has obviously been some embarrassed shuffling in the Labour party about the wording of its proposals on this because of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend draws attention. The Times did a useful job of exposing that on its front page yesterday. I recommend the text that was published to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Home Secretary aware how delighted we are that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) totally agrees with the Labour party that there should be no control over police operations by local police authorities and that there should be no supervision of the police by local police authorities? Neither is Labour party policy, and we repudiate both. That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman now explain why crime has risen to record levels under the Conservative Government, when the Prime Minister personally promised that she would reduce it? Is it that the Prime Minister made that promise knowing that she could not keep it, or has she tried to keep it and failed?
    Mr. Hurd: Our commitment was to give priority to law and order. The facts and figures that I have given show that we have abundantly done that.
    Mr. Kaufman: But failed.
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is dodging the question. As I understand it, the story in The Times bears it out. The Labour party believes that, while operational matters, as it fails to define them, should continue to be under the control of the police, police priorities should be under the supervision of local authorities.
    Mr. Kaufman: No.
    Mr. Hurd: Well, there are different versions and the right hon. Gentleman is shuffling between them, but any one of them would be deeply damaging to the police.

    Prisons
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the control of costs and management of construction of new prisons and procurement of supplies and stores for them.
    Mr. Hurd: The design and construction of new prisons is undertaken by the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment, which is responsible, in consultation with the Home Office for cost control and management of construction programmes. The supply of equipment and stores for new prisons is undertaken in accordance with normal Government procurement arrangements. In the Home Office we have recently reviewed those arrangements to ensure that we receive proper value for money.
    Mr. Latham: In view of the gross waste of public money which has taken place at the new Stocken prison in my

    1135
    constituency, of which my right hon. Friend is aware, will he consider introducing an experienced business man from the private sector to supervise the building, design and furnishing of new prisons?
    Mr. Hurd: The Stocken prison is an illustration of the dangers of stop-go. The prison was designed in the early 1970s and scrapped, as a result of the Labour Government's cuts, in 1976. It had to be brought forward urgently when we took office, so the old design, which is below standard, was taken off the shelf and put into effect. The thrust of my hon. Friend's question is right. I expect he knows that the PSA is putting more resources into site supervision, which is, I believe, the key to most of this, and it is increasingly using outside private enterprise consultants to do that. My hon. Friend will know that the Environment Select Committee is looking into PSA operations.
    Mr. Heffer: Although nobody would disagree with the view that construction must be cost-effective, is it not clear that the programme of building new prisons and improving existing ones must be speeded up because the problem of prison overcrowding, which affects prisoners and those who look after them, has reached crisis proportions? Is it not necessary for the Government to take speedy action to deal with this growing crisis?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is why we are pressing ahead with the programme to build 16 more new prisons and refurbishing a large number of traditional prisons. He is perfectly correct. However, our task would he much easier if this matter had not been so shamefully neglected by our predecessors.

    Civil Defence College
    Mr. Hindasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider changing the name of the Civil Defence College, Easingwold to the Civil Protection College.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are no present plans to change the name of the Civil Defence College.
    Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the correct approach to emergency planning is to pursue a broad all-hazards policy — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] — which will also embrace peacetime emergencies? Can my right hon. Friend give us an undertaking that future courses at the college will reflect that attitude?
    Mr. Hogg: Indeed, the public are firmly committed to an all-hazards approach. The Government will not forgive those local authorities, notably Labour-controlled authorities, which refuse to discharge their statutory obligations.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ernie Robertsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Commission of the European Communities. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister take into account the views of the massive lobby yesterday against Sizewell B? Will she take note of the fact that the Layfield report. which is two years out of date, did not consider the massive disaster at Chernobyl?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware. the whole report is now before the House. He is also aware that it will be debated in the House before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy makes his decision.
    Mr. Thornton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the sentences that were passed in the Ealing vicarage case not only fall short of the guidelines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice, but also very much fly in the face of the way in which the public show their revulsion of such crimes? Will my right hon. Friend and her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary examine the present Criminal Justice Bill and consider how that can be strengthened to give effect to Lord Lane's proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House shares my hon. Friend's deep concern about the dreadful crime of rape. As he knows, it is the Government's task to ensure that sufficient maximum sentences are available for the courts to deal with these matters. I think my hon. Friend is also aware that clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill before the House allows the Attorney-General to seek leave to refer to the Court of Appeal cases which seem to him to raise issues of public importance. This is intended to enable proper sentencing standards to be maintained. A similar clause has been before Parliament before, but that was lost in another place, greatly to our regret. We undertook to bring a similar clause hack before the House. That can now be found in the Criminal Justice Bill and it will allow the House the opportunity to secure sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. Kinnock: I agree very broadly with the Prime Minister's comments about the sentences. I simply offer the view that, while it is necessary for judges to remain detached in the name of the law, sometimes they show an insenstitivity to the suffering of victims which is difficult to comprehend.
    Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives who unanimously condemned the United States nuclear test in the Nevada desert on Tuesday? Will she convey to President Reagan the regret and opposition felt by many in this country to the United States making that test? In the course of doing that, will she invite the Soviet Union to extend its 18-month moratorium on testing? Will she communicate with General Secretary Gorbachev and urge him not to make a precipitate response by resuming testing?
    The Prime Minister: First, with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the matter of rape and sentences for it, I must point out that in January 1985, in the debates on what is now the Prosecution of Offences Act, both the Opposition and the alliance voted solidly to oppose our proposal to enable lenient sentences to be referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman says that this time they will support clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like facts. He finds them embarrasing.

    1137
    With regard to the United States underground nuclear testing, I point out that the United States, like the United Kingdom, sees substantial difficulties over verification before we can get a full, comprehensive test ban treaty. I understand that the arrangement agreed at Reykjavik was for a step-by-step approach to nuclear testing, and that should go by way of ratifying the threshold test ban treaty and the treaty on peaceful nuclear explosions.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I first say — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Lady will want to reflect on the use to which she put the previous question, which I thought was a matter of common view among us. Notwithstanding her efforts to make party points out of what is —[Interruption.] The fact remains that the clause in the Prosecution Offences Act would not have had the bearing that I presume the right hon. Lady would want it to have on this kind of case.
    May I say to the Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] As the test undertaken on Tuesday was obviously outside the laboratory, has the right hon. Lady sought assurances from President Reagan that it was not connected with the star wars project, and therefore not in breach of the strict interpretation of the ABM treaty, which once again last week was wisely and strongly endorsed by the Foreign Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that the essential item in the comprehensive test ban treaty is verification. I have part of the ABM treaty in front of me. Interpretation of it must be a matter for the parties who signed it. It is they who are best at interpreting it.
    Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend consider that the people of Scotland have enjoyed for the past 10 years responsible changes in the licensing laws not enjoyed by people of England and Wales? Will she acknowledge that the recent filibuster of a private Member's Bill to change the law in England and Wales did not represent the will of the House? Could she ask her business managers to allow a little more time to allow this modest Bill to go through the House?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government do not give time for private Members' Bills, and we would be in great difficulty if we were to break that rule and give it to one. We shall be interested in the views that the House takes on that matter.
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cartwright: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that senior figures in the United States Administration are pressing for an early decision to deploy part of the star wars system? As the Prime Minister has rightly and frequently endorsed the original, narrow definition of the ABM treaty, will she take every possible action to dissuade President Reagan from listening to the advice from those who seem determined to wreck the ABM treaty and kill the chance of an early summit meeting?
    The Prime Minister: There is no reason to think that any decisions on deployment of SDI are imminent, and it is perfectly legitimate., I understand, under the treaty to go ahead with SDI research while arms reductions are
    1138
    negotiated. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that new systems are dealt with under agreed statement D attached to the treaty and signed by both sides.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week a visiting Soviet delegation announced concessions that the Soviets are prepared to make on human rights, and they are most welcome? Does she agree that one of the main reasons for the concessions is that the West is insisting on remaining strong in defence and developing the strategic defence initiative?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I think that the fact that the West is staying absolutely strong in defence is bringing about many changes in the approach of the Soviet Union. Also, the Soviet Union has considerable internal difficulties which may be leading it to make some changes in areas such as human rights, where, otherwise, we have not got very far in previous years.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the Prime Minister is on record as having said that she would be prepared to press the nuclear button, does she not think that it would have been more honest if, in the Government film to be circulated to our schools, she had appeared personally and repeated that? Does she not agree that millions of our people are deeply angry about the use of taxpayers' money to brainwash our schoolchildren with blatant party political propaganda?
    The Prime Minister: Point No. 1: a nuclear deterrent that has been the best peace—
    Mr. Hamilton: Press the button—
    The Prime Minister: I am coming to that.
    A nuclear deterrent that has been the best peace policy of this century would not be a deterrent unless those in charge were prepared to press that button. It would not have been a deterrent in any previous Government who had it either. The hon. Gentleman wants to abandon the nuclear deterrent. We will not do that. Secondly, that film is not a party political film. It is a film on Government information—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: —about how the Government discharge their duty to secure the defence of the realm. The only people who will say that it is party political are those who wish not to have any duty to defend the realm, such as Opposition Members.
    Mr. Amessasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: When the Prime Minister visits Moscow next month and meets Mr. Gorbachev, will she stand firm in her resolve to achieve peace through multilateral, rather than unilateral, disarmament? Will she also take the opportunity to point out to Mr. Gorbachev that the Soviet Union's record on individual human rights leaves much to be desired?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I shall be discussing with Mr. Gorbachev the prospects for arms reductions. Unilateral disarmament, which is the policy of the Labour party, would remove any incentive for the Russians to negotiate as well as expose this country's security to grave risks.

    1139
    Unilateral nuclear disarmament would expose Britain to grave risks and abolish the nuclear deterrent, which has been the best peace policy for 40 years.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's other comments, I shall, as in past discussions, have human rights issues very much in mind and raise them with the Soviet Government.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Lady aware, in the light of Monday's debate on the Royal Navy, in which hon. Members from both sides condemned the disappearance of the merchant fleet, that the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport to increase light dues on merchant vessels and fishing boats is regarded with the gravest concern and may well be the death knell for what remains of the Merchant Navy? Does she agree that that is a real danger to national security?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on this matter some weeks ago because he was concerned about having sufficient officers and men in the merchant marine. He therefore made three proposals which will help to secure that end. I may also point out to the right hon. Gentleman, because we are often asked to reintroduce the 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances, that in fact the flagging out of the Merchant Marine came while we had those allowances.
    Mr. Nelsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nelson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports today that the Labour party has joined the Liberal party and the SDP — [Interruption.] — and re-affirmed its intention of making large numbers of home buyers pay much more for their mortgages? Is this not yet further evidence — [Interruption.] —that only the Conservative party and the Conservative Government will protect the interests of home buyers?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party and Government are now the only people who do not want to limit in any way the present system of mortgage interest tax relief for home buyers.
    Mr. Boyesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that as a result of the raid on BBC Scotland the special branch now has in its possession a BBC memo that says the programmes made by Duncan Campbell would not damage the national interest and that there was no possibility of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Will the Prime Minister further acknowledge that, after the meetings between Duncan Campbell and the Attorney General, his attention was drawn to the fact that Duncan Campbell did not in any way want to damage the national interest, as the Attorney General requested? Consequently, Duncan Campbell acted in a responsible manner, and it is the Government who have acted irresponsibly.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the police properly obtained the search warrant from the
    1140
    courts, which decided that it should issue it. With regard to any material taken away by the police, its use and decisions on any prosecutions are matters for the prosecuting authorities, not for the Government.
    Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of questions?
    Mr. Dewar: Yes. It arises out of the last exchange between the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). You will be aware that on Tuesday there was a debate — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not begun to hear the point of order.
    Mr. Dewar: You will recall that there was a debate on Tuesday into the matter of the warrant which was issued for the search of the BBC premises in Glasgow. There emerged in that debate a very sharp difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the involvement of the Law Officers and the duty they had in respect of the issue of that warrant.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Tuesday.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what is being said.
    Mr. Dewar: This clash and difference of view is still unresolved and was very evident during the course of those exchanges. The Lord Advocate yesterday in another place made a statement which made it clear that, in his view, the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong in his opinions, and confirmed the views expressed by the Lord Advocate. It seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation that matters of fundamental importance and of great public concern should have been ventilated in another place and should have arisen directly out of a debate in this House when Members of this House have no opportunity of probing or examining the principal actors in that dispute. As there is no sign of a statement from Ministers, may we have your help and advice on how we can get at these important issues?
    Mr. Speaker: What is said from the Front Bench, or, indeed, in another place, is not a matter for me, so I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is fair to point out that my noble Friend the Lord Advocate in another place, when expressly asked, confirmed that in his view there was no disparity between what he said and what I or my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland had said.
    Mr. Dewar rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As the Secretary of State had volunteered a comment, I must allow a response.
    Mr. Dewar: The Lord Advocate perhaps did not read the debate as carefully as did hon. Members. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Scotland—I use this as just a representative quote — said:
    "the width of any warrant sought is a matter not for the police or for the Lord Advocate but for the courts."
    Clearly, throughout his speech, he was trying to imply that there was no ministerial involvement, while the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that the Lord Advocate was

    1141
    "there to ensure that … the warrant … does not go beyond what is required."— [Official Report, 3 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 852–57.]
    It is clear from that that there is a complete incompatibility of view as to the duty of the Law Officers between the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General. If — I make this point because it is important—the Solicitor-General is correct and there was a direct ministerial responsibility in the hands of the Law Officers, the way in which that warrant was drafted, and the very different way in which it was drafted in Scotland as against England, lies at the heart of the public controversy and alarm, and the House should, in the form of a statement from the relevant Ministers, have a chance to debate it.
    Mr. Speaker: None of that is a matter for me, nor was the question addressed to me.
    Sir William Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot be further to that point of order. The point of order was put to me and I was prepared to answer it, but in my place the Secretary of State for Scotland volunteered a comment. I allowed a response. There can be nothing further to that point of order.
    Sir William Clark: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was clearly under the impression that you prefaced your remarks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Carscadden (Mr. Dewar) by asking whether his point of order arose out of questions and he said that it did. As it is quite obvious that it did not arise out of questions, was that not an abuse of the so-called point of order? Indeed, some of us on the Back Benches would never get away with that, so why did the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it did arise out of the previous question. If I ask an hon. Member whether his point of order arises directly out of questions and he says that it does, in honour I accept that, and I believe that that point of order did so arise.
    Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the suggestion that you permitted an abuse a direct criticism of the Chair?
    Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that your ruling means that when you ask an hon. Member whether his point of order arises out of questions, provided that it arises out of questions that day, last week or some other Question Time, it becomes in order? Or does that apply only to the Front Benches?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rule perfectly well.
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not.
    Mr. Speaker: Let me spell it out clearly to the House. I take points of order immedately after questions if they arise as a result of questions. Otherwise, I take them after any applications under Standing Order No. 20.
    Mr. Dickens: On a new point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that earlier we had many questions about the crime figures of the nation. You may not have heard, but I ought to tell you that this morning at the Old Bailey Judge Miskin gave—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly look at me please? May I make one other comment which I think the whole House should have reaffirmed? Points of order must be matters on which I can rule. With all charity to the hon. Gentleman, I am not responsible by any stretch of the imagination for what any judge at the Old Bailey may say.
    Mr. Dickens rose—
    Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order for me.
    Mr. Dickens: I have never sought to go against your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the point that I am putting to you for your ruling is as follows. How can this House pass legislation about sentencing when our judges live in a different world?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has parliamentary options open to him.
    Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Does this arise out of Questions?
    Mr. Cohen: Yes. You will have heard the Prime Minister speak about the defence policy of the Labour party as unilateral disarmament. It is not that: it is unilateral nuclear disarmament. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are sensitive about the wording that can be used in the House. If the Prime Minister or any Conservative Member uses that term again, would it be in order to call them liars?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the word liar is unparliamentary. Unilateral disarmament or unilateral nuclear disarment are not unparliamentary terms.

Business of the House
3.43 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill.
Motions relating to the Dockyard Services (Devonport) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order and the Dockyard Services (Rosyth) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY — Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Housing Crisis and the Rise in Homelessness".
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Timetable motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill. Remaining stages of the Petroleum Bill.
Motions on Scottish housing grant and revenue orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on a Government motion on the Government's employment and training initiatives, European Community document No. 10119/86 on an action programme for employment growth will be relevant to the debate.
FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY — Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill (Lords).
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Debate on Thursday 12 February: Relevant European Document, 10119/86, "Action programme on employment growth"; Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee, HC 22-ii (1986–87), para 3.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Government's decision to put a guillotine on the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill is a disgrace. Every part of the legislative process of this Bill has been marked by the Government's disregard for the proper process of informed debate. This Bill is unfair and completely unwanted by the people of Scotland. Will the Government reconsider their decision and at least allow further time for the Scottish people to have their case put fully in the House?
On a further point about Scotland, is the Leader of the House aware that, in the matter of the decision to close the Caterpillar tractor plant at Uddingston, with a loss of over 1,200 jobs, the Secretary of State for Scotland has so far made several statements outside the House voicing his amazement and disappointment but has made no statement to the House since the last Scottish Question Time? Bearing in mind the enthusiastic and optimistic references to Caterpillar that the Secretary of State made in his new year message, does the Leader of the House not think it high time that his right hon. Friend came to the
1144
House to make a statement, preferably in a debate—in any case, very quickly — before he becomes a mere public mourner for private crimes committed by the Caterpillar company?
Yesterday, the Lord Advocate — this matter has already been referred to in the House today—made a statement in the other place about the raid that the special branch carried out on the BBC in Scotland. I understand that, in response to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that he was willing to make a statement about the matter in the House of Commons. In view of that, and in view of the inconsistency between what the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House on Tuesday and what the Lord Advocate told the other place yesterday, does the Leader of the House agree that the Solicitor-General for Scotland's offer to make a statement here should be taken up immediately, and, at the very latest at the beginning of next week?
Has the Leader of the House seen the article in today's edition of The Guardian that suggests that the Zircon details were published in an industrial newsletter called "Interspace" in 1984? Will he ask the Home Secretary to investigate this report and get him to make a statement to the House next week? It is clear that such information could affect the context of the Government's present actions under the Official Secrets Act.
Once again, I ask the Leader of the House to give urgent consideration to having a debate on the great and growing crisis of the decline in Britain's Merchant Navy. I realise that the issue was referred to in the debates on the Navy earlier this week, particularly in excellent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). In the past seven years, the fleet has shrunk by over 50 per cent. to fewer than 500 vessels. Surely, as I have said before, that must be a matter of great national interest arid worthy of a debate in Government time. I urge the Leader of the House to make that time available.
Finally, in view of the confidence shown in market forces that led to the sale of Westland plc to Sikorsky a year ago, recent news of the company's financial crisis must come as a severe disappointment to the Government, as indeed it does to the Opposition and to Westland's workers. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government will bail out the company? Will he arrange for a statement to be made on the issue by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry early next week?
Mr. Biffen: I shall take up the six points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Already, up to 86 hours have been devoted to the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill. So far, we have reached only clause 17 of a Bill that contains 34 clauses and six schedules. That is a reasonable background against which to understand the Government's proposals. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us a trailer of the arguments that will be used by the Opposition in that item of business on Wednesday.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, has made clear his opposition to the closure of the Caterpillar factory. I shall draw his attention to the request that a statement be made on this topic.

1145
The Leader of the Opposition referred to matters that were the subject of exchanges earlier today about remarks by the Lord Advocate in another place. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland has never committed himself to making a statement, but I shall look into the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I make this observation in the context that, in any case, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will answer questions on Wednesday.
I assure the Leader of the Opposition that The Guardian newspaper is not my early morning reading. It has that engaging—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Sun."] I rightly have a different set of priorities, and I accept the guidance proffered by the right hon. Gentleman. That apart, I shall of course refer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the point that he raised.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Merchant Navy featured in powerful contributions by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), and I do not think that I can offer the early prospect of a further debate on the Merchant Navy, since it was debated only a few days ago. [Interruption.] I just wonder how many debates on the Merchant Navy the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) cheerfully fielded during his days in office. I suspect that he encountered many more local difficulties than I ever have to encounter.
As to Westland, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
Sir George Young: In view of the widespread public debate about the sentences following the crimes committed at the Ealing vicarage, which is in my constituency, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could find time for a general debate on sentencing policy, in particular on the place of rape in the general tariff of sentences that is apparently available at the moment?
Mr. Biffen: The passage of the Criminal Justice Bill might conceivably enable my hon. Friend to make the speech that he has in mind. I realise that this recent event has caught the full mind and the full distaste of the public at large, and also that of this House. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request about the possibility of a debate on sentencing policy, but I have to say that there can be no early prospect of such a debate in Government time.
Mr. David Alton: In view of the growing and widespread public concern about the whereabouts of Mr. Terry Waite, will the Leader of the House find out whether there is anything useful that the Government can tell the House next week about his whereabouts and his present condition? Also, does he agree that the film "Keeping the Peace" ought to be shown in the precincts some time next week? Before films of this kind are made, does he not think that it would be useful if discussions were held with the other parties to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between propaganda and public information?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the point that the hon. Gentleman
1146
has made about Mr. Waite. As to his second point, he raises—perhaps deliberately and in a highly contentious fashion—a protest about what I believe is an estimable film, although I have not yet seen it.
Sir John Page: In view of the calm sunshine in which the Government are at present basking, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to try to find time for a very short debate on early-day motion 367 about the floodlighting of the statute of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square?
[That this House would welcome the permanent floodlighting of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square as a reminder of his special place in British history and in order to create a new night-time landmark in London; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to make the necessary arrangements forthwith.]
That suggestion was put to me by one of the police officers in the House, remembering how very economical and effective is the lighting of the statue of George V in Abingdon place.
Mr. Biffen: If I am basking in political sunshine, there must be some redress under misleading merchandise marks. As to my hon. Friend's specific point about the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I am sure that it will have widespread support.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House take into consideration the widespread concern, particularly of south Yorkshire Members of Parliament, about the differences of opinion between Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate and the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding the viability of the manning of the south Yorkshire fire services, which is leading to inadequate fire cover for the people of south Yorkshire?
Mr. Biffen: I can best help the hon. Gentleman by referring that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole House will welcome the opportunity that is presented by next Tuesday's debate on the order to continue the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984? It must be particularly welcome to the Leader of the Opposition, with his new-found interest in and commitment to national security. It gives him the opportunity of whipping his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the government on this Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any indication yet of what the policy of the Labour party will be on Tuesday?
Mr. Biffen: No, but I think that my hon. Friend should try to learn to be an optimist and to hope that the Labour party will be with us in the Lobby supporting their measure.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that people such as haemophiliacs who have AIDS as a result of blood transfusions from the National Health Service could eventually be considered victims of manslaughter by the NHS and could certainly be considered to be victims of medical accidents? Could we therefore have a debate on the case for paying them no-fault compensation?
Mr. Biffen: I see no prospect of time being available for a debate—on an admittedly important topic—over the next few weeks. but the right hon. Gentleman might try to use his skill and authority in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: In considering the Leader of the Opposition's synthetic outrage about the timetabling of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Labour party has made if perfectly clear in Committee that it is committed to retaining the rating system, wants regular revaluations and wishes to extend rating to cover agricultural land and buildings? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the strictures of the Glasgow Herald, which denounced the Opposition's performance on the basis that it is weak, flabby, ineffective and confused?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the debate on Wednesday on timetable provisions will give the Labour party an opportunity to demonstrate that it will continue to retain these anachronistic forms of taxation, including the rating of agricultural land. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's other point.
Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision to timetable the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, which is probably the most controversial, important and fundamental Bill of a Scottish character that has come before the House for many years? It deserves our consideration. There is no reason to rush the Bill through, because there is no business waiting to go into the Scottish Standing Committee. Therefore, there is no rush of other business for Scottish Members.
Mr. Biffen: I do not expect to become a folk hero for timetabling the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, but neither do I expect to be a victim of deeply held abuse and hatred from those who nominally have to oppose the measure.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Regarding the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Order, is my right hon. Friend aware that the present take-it-or-leave-it procedure, whereby we debate this type of order, causes considerable difficulties for hon. Members? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although that order applies to a Northern Ireland matter that has been debated in the United Kingdom, it departs from that matter in significant ways. Under the present procedure, there is no way in which those hon. Members who wish the order to go through as a whole can debate or amend particular parts of the order that are different in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend put his inventive mind to work to see whether various resolutions can be put forward so that the House can discuss, and if necessary vote on, those matters that are essentially different from those that have been debated already in the case of England and Wales?
Mr. Biffen: There are sound reasons why the conventions have developed in the way that they have. None the less, my hon. Friend has made a legitimate point. Perhaps we can consider it further through the usual channels.
Mr. James Lamond: I assume that the Prime Minister will be making a statement following her visit to the Soviet Union, but has the Leader of the House noticed that, more than seven weeks ahead of that visit, hon. Members are telling the right hon. Lady
1148
of matters that they would like her to raise while she is there? Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement before her visit to the Soviet Union, so that she can outline the matters with which she intends to deal, answer questions and take note of points that hon. Members might like her to raise?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: She is electioneering.
Mr. Biffen: It is perfectly natural that a lively interest should be shown on both sides of the House about the impending visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Russia. No doubt that interest will intensify, much to the discomfort of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: Fancy using the hustings in Moscow.
Mr. Biffen: Where would we be without the hon. Gentleman? I am not sure that there is a good case for the innovation sought by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Larnond), but I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.
Mr. Tom Sackville: In view of the widespread condemnation of the Soviet Union's failure to observe the Helsinki Accord, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the case of Anatoly Koryagin, a distinguished psychiatrist, who was imprisoned following his protests at the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, who has been systematically tortured by starvation, cold and lack of medical facilities and who, contrary to announcements in the press last week, has still not been released? In fact, his wife and family have heard nothing from him and fear that he may be close to death.
Mr. Biffen: I think that my hon. Friend will realise why it would be a little hazardous for me to undertake to find Government time for such a debate, but I am sure that he will concede the opportunities that exist for an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that the Leader of the House has no ambition to be a folk hero in Scotland—an ambition that he will certainly not realise. But is there any reason why he should court the role of the pantomime demon king by introducing the absurd timetable motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, in view of the fact that the Committee has sat for a mere five weeks and has already completed consideration of half the Bill — 17 clauses in 17 sittings? For what sort of productivity is the right hon. Gentleman looking? Why is he acting in a fashion that is close to unconstitutional?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes up for the mildness of his manner with the absurd exaggeration of his speech and charges. I have portrayed a very reasonable case. As the hon. Gentleman said, 86 hours have been devoted to the Bill and the Committee is only half way through the clauses. It is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to have measured progress hereafter with the assistance of a timetable.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the procedures arid privileges of the House, especially since the film which you, Mr. Speaker, said should not be shown in the House is apparently being shown with impunity the length arid breadth of the land, encouraged by the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition has apparently made no attempt

1149
to stop the filming, despite his original statement that he believed that it was not in the national interest that the film should be shown. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to review its position and that of the Opposition and the relationship between national security and your role, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the points so forcefully put by my hon. Friend. The House may prefer to await the report which will eventually be received from the Privileges Committee.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Reverting to the special branch raid on BBC Glasgow, is the Leader of the House aware that we have seen not only the statement by the Lord Advocate in the other place yesterday but the terms of the warrant which the Lord Advocate was involved in drawing up and which he approved? It is clear from the warrant that it was directed not just at the one Zircon film but at all six films in the series "The Secret Society". In those circumstances, the matter cannot possibly be allowed to rest, since Ministers deliberately obscured the terms of the warrant in the debate in the House on Thursday. Another statement must be made in the House on this important matter.
Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am sorry that he uses language that implies deception by my right hon. Friends—[Interruption.]—and I am sorry that he chooses to repeat it from a sedentary position. I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Michael Latham: May I appeal yet again to my right hon. Friend's rural —indeed rustic—sense of benevelence to find out whether he can provide time for a debate on agriculture? Is he aware that the Common Market's decisions before Christmas have not been unanimously received with enthusiasm by the farming community? Is it not high time that we had a debate on those decisions?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall bear his points very much in mind. I think that my hon. Friend understands that a great many agricultural affairs are now directed through the activities of the European Community and that gives us some opportunities from time to time. I shall, however, further consider my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Hugh Brown: Will the Leader of the House reconsider Wednesday's business on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill? Is he aware that the Government got off to a bad start in Committee by moving an unprecedented and provocative sittings motion, the like of which I have never seen before? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a narrow distinction may be drawn on the part of many Scottish Members between filibustering and natural verbosity?
Mr. Biffen: I notice the delicate distinction which the hon. Gentleman throws out as a lifeline for Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When may we have a debate on Lord Chief Justice Lane's guidelines on sentencing in rape cases? Does my right hon. Friend accept
1150
that outrage is felt throughout the country at the fact that the average sentence for rape is only three and a half years and that only 20 months are served? May we have an
opportunity to provide for stiffer sentences—a minimum of 25 years with no parole and a right of appeal against the absurdly lenient sentences which are being imposed, even by Mr. Justice Leonard in the Ealing vicarage case?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) raised this point and I gave as measured a reply as I could. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that answer as having anticipated his question.
Mr. David Clelland: I draw the attenion of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 524 on Council Aid.
[That this House congratulates the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead Council and War on Want on the successful launch of Council aid; recognises the potential of this latest initiative to relieve poverty and suffering in the Third World; and calls upon local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to play their full part, collectively and individually, to support Council Aid during 1987.]
The motion has the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in congratulating Gateshead metropolitan borough council and War on Want on their efforts to encourage local authorities to raise funds for the Third World during 1987? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the Third World's continuing problems, which have not gone away because the television cameras were withdrawn?
Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is certainly powerfully true that the problems remain long after the passing fashion of the media. I shall look at the early-day motion and ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Mr. Richard Holt: I was rather disappointed by my right hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Instead of saying that there would not be a debate on the narrow subject which was raised, my right hon. Friend should urge an early debate on the whole subject of AIDS so that the House has the opportunity to give a lead to the country on the dangerous nature of this disease and its effects and to clear up much of the ignorance and superstition that exists.
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. I should have thought that the House had an extremely good, comprehensive and instructive debate just before Christmas. In some sense, we have moved on to the more specific issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and I shall not commend the expectation of Government time for another general debate.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House pay special attention to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Caterpillar tractor company? Will he bear in mind that that company acted ruthlessly and viciously from square one? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he was involved in discussions with the American company before and after it was closed? The right hon.

1151
and learned Gentleman did not have the courtesy to come to the House and declare himself. Will the Leader of the House make it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland must tell us where he stands on this issue? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman align himself with the Opposition and the workers at the Caterpillar factory?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made his position very clear. I hope that he will he fully supported and have his position endorsed by Scottish Opposition Members. Of course, I shall add to the point that I shall be making because of the requests by the Leader of the Opposition by including the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is immense concern in the country and the House following the incredible sentences imposed in the Ealing vicarage rape case? Bearing that in mind, would it not be wise, notwithstanding the fact that the Criminal Justice Bill is before the House, to have a full debate on sentencing and the judiciary so that the public can note where individual hon. Members stand?
Mr. Biffen: I note the interest evinced by my hon. Friend in two major topics. None the less, I am obliged to let my original answer stand. I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Jim Craigen: Will the right lion. Gentleman explain why there is such unwarranted haste in cutting the parliamentary time available to debate the poll tax legislation in Scotland, which will not do away with revaluation for the non-domestic sector? If the poll tax is such a good idea, why was not a Bill introduced in the current session to institute such a tax in England and Wales?
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for the felicitous concern that the hon. Gentleman shows for ratepayers in England and Wales. However, for the moment we should confine ourselves to the reality which is that there is a Bill for Scotland. I take note of the argument that will be deployed on Wednesday.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware of page 154 of "Erskine May", which states—
Mr. Biffen indicated dissent.
Mr. Marlow: Well, can I remind my right hon. Friend that it says that any act which has the effect of bringing the House into ridicule is a contempt of the House? My right hon. Friend will be aware —[Laughter.] Shall I start again'? I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend will be aware of Mr. Speaker's ruling and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Zircon affair is a matter of grave national security. He will also be aware of the fact that Front Bench spokesmen of the Labour party have been spraying the wretched film around Scotland with gay and uncontrolled abandon. Does my right hon. Friend feel that that brings the House into contempt? It certainly brings the Labour party into contempt. Would it be a proper issue to put before the Committee of Privileges?
Mr. Biffen: If I might show a supreme act of political cowardice, I would say that this behaviour of hon. Members is more a matter for Mr. Speaker than for myself.
Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that before Christmas I raised the issue of the need for a Government statement on the sale of coal hoard houses and the speculators who are involved? In view of the continuing controversy, as reported in several newspapers this week, could the Government make a statement on the matter now, as it appears that they have intervened?
I had to smile when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Prime Minister's trip to Moscow — I really could not help it—because I recall that in 1980 the Prime Minister said to British athletes "Don't go to Moscow". The Prime Minister's little bout of hypocrisy in gallivanting off to Moscow could only be improved by inviting Seb Coe and Steve Ovett to accompany her on the plane, so that they can show her the way around.
Mr. Biffen: I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to practically every suggestion that comes from the hon. Gentleman, including that one. I shall consider the first point that he raised and see whether a ministerial answer can be given.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and other hon. Members, and ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision not to hold an early debate on sentencing policy and on the wider issues relating to rape trials, bearing in mind the appallingly low sentences which were passed in the Ealing vicarage rape case, the fact that the police, who worked for 10 days arid nights to bring those culprits to book, must feel let down, and the huge disturbance that it has created in the whole community of Ealing and beyond?
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision and allow a debate to enable hon. Members to consider the role of the judiciary in such matters, and not least the fact that the family in this case, like those in other cases, feels that the woman's point of view has not been properly understood by a male judge and that a male judge should be supported, or replaced, by a female judge in future rape trials?
Mr. Biffen: I gave a measured but, I thought, none the less reasonable reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) which took a realistic view of the demands made upon the time of the House. Of course, I take account of the point made by my hon. Friend, and by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I should make it quite clear that the substantive answer is the one that I gave to the first question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton.
Mr. Speaker: I call the other Member for Leicester—[Laughter] These things happen to us all. I am so sorry. Mr. Janner.
Mr. Greville Janner: Leaving on one side the unhappy mistakes of democracy in the east of the city of Leicester, the west of which I am pleased to represent, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will be good enough to inquire of the Prime Minister why, on 7 November 1986, when she promised an urgent reply to my letter about the whereabouts and the nature of the 17

1153
alleged war criminals in this country, she still has not replied? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on that subject, perhaps redefining the word "urgency", and, at the same time, will she refer to the previously secret documents that were revealed in the excellent Scottish television programme that was repeated on Channel 4 last night, which appeared to support the allegation that Britain has become a safe haven for some Nazi war criminals, including Antanas Gecas, who is living in comfort in Edinburgh and who, on television last night admitted to war crimes?
Mr. Biffen: As I have said repeatedly to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall not enter into the merits of his proposition but shall inquire why there have been difficulties in providing an answer for him.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I draw one other matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, which might yet make him change his mind about a debate on sentencing policy? Can he confirm that, even under the welcome provision in clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, those who receive grossly over-lenient sentences cannot be put in jeopardy of facing a correct sentence? If the prosecution, the defence and the country have a proper interest in ensuring that the right sentences are imposed, should we not grasp this nettle and give the prosecution a proper right of appeal and, if necessary, continue to put that proposition to their Lordships until they see the light of day?
Mr. Biffen: I am not clear from what my hon. Friend has said whether that is impossible with the passage of the current Criminal Justice Bill. Of course, I shall take into account what he has said about the desire in the House for these matters to be more widely debated, but I have already said that my initial reaction is not to allow a wider debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland cannot all be right. Why can we not go back to the old days when a personal statement would be made that would be acceptable to the House to clarify such difficult matters?
Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Zircon affair, my Adjournment debate tomorrow at 2.30 pm is highly relevant to prosecution policy in relation to the Official Secrets Act. Will he suggest that the Solicitor-General, who is to reply to that debate, makes an authoritative statement on "Interspace" issues 46 and 61, which seem to give the impression that the Zircon project was known to those who subscribe to that magazine, such as the technical experts at GCHQ and doubtless also those in the Kremlin.
Finally, as one who has always received great personal courtesy from him, I should like to say that we very much regret the illness of the Attorney-General and hope that he will recover soon.
Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his kind words about my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's second point was a hint of some of the lines that he will take in the
1154
Adjournment debate tomorrow, and I shall see that they are conveyed to the Minister who is to reply. On this first point, he will understand that I have tried to set out the position, as it is seen from the Treasury Bench, to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the complex but important question of extra-territoriality, and especially the efforts of the United States to enforce its law in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that in the House last week a Defence Minister said that a committee within the MOD is considering extra-territoriality, which takes it beyond the normal DTI responsibility. Therefore, is there not a case for an urgent debate on the whole question, rather than trying to confine it to interdepartmental conferences and actions, which are clearly having no effect.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of great, and I suspect growing, significance which now covers more than just one Government Department. I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to try his chances in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Tony Favell: While discussing the possibility of a debate on sentencing policy with the Home Secretary, will my right hon. Friend applaud both the decision of the Court of Appeal this week not to interfere with two five-year imprisonment sentences imposed on two young men for mugging a bus conductor, and the statement that those who indulge in mugging, especially of women at night, can expect long custodial sentences?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. As far as possible, I have always made it my practice not to comment on court sentencing and I hope that he will understand if I prefer to keep to that policy today.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Leader of the House not see that the Government have no mandate whatever to seek to impose on the people of Scotland a mediaeval poll tax which will discriminate against those on low incomes? Since he will have the embarrassing misfortune of moving the timetable motion of Wednesday, may I recommend that he looks at the Official Report of the Committee proceedings? That reveals the Government's extraordinarily lackadaisical attitude in Committee, which made it abundantly clear from the start that they want hours, not clauses, and that they are seeking to conceal the effects of the Bill on the Scottish people?
Mr. Biffen: If the Government wanted hours, I have the impression that they have some good allies on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Leader of the House aware of the overwhelming evidence to the Education Select Committee about the hardship being suffered by students on the present level of grants and its strong recommendation to the Government that they should increase grants for next year by more than the rate of inflation to alleviate that hardship? As the Government took absolutely no notice of that Select Committee report, presumably because they want to impose loans on students, could we at least have the opportunity to debate the report and the Government's response to it?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that in the immediate future I see no possibility of Government time being available. However, I would be at one with him in stressing the importance of the issue.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to find time next week to make a statement on why he broke a commitment to the Lambeth police consultative group to publish the inquiry of the Police Complaints Authority into the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce, not least since there are many open questions on the matter—for example the issue that the Home Secretary raised today, of how much Inspector Lovelock had been drinking the night before the shooting and why his request that he should not be assigned to that raid was not met? Will the Leader of the House also urge the Home Secretary to make a statement on the massive police raid on the Vauxhall tavern in my constituency on 24 January, which appears to have been unwarranted as no complaints have been received from any member of the public about alleged drunkenness in that public house?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes several serious allegations on which I cannot comment. I shall certainly raise with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the hon. Gentleman's request for consideration and a statement.

Private Rented Housing
4.22 pm
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I should like to make a statement on private rented housing.
The Government are keen to encourage the provision of private housing for letting by a greater variety of agencies than at present and to increase freedom of choice for people wishing to rent their homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I propose, therefore, to give local authorities an explicit statutory power to provide financial assistance to the private sector, including housing associations, in order to assist in the provision of rented housing using private sources of finance. We envisage that financial assistance might be particularly appropriate for the support of schemes involving assured tenancies. We propose to include the necessary provisions in the Local Government Bill this Session.
Local authorities will be able to use these powers to keep the rents of new housing developments by the private sector to levels which prospective tenants can be expected to afford. The purpose is also to give further encouragement to the introduction of private finance into the provision of such housing. I hope that authorities and others concerned will make the maximum use of these powers to encourage the development of schemes by responsible landlords for rented housing, particularly in areas where needs are greatest.
It is important, however, that such financial assistance should not be used simply to featherbed private sector provision by removing all risk from it and converting it into a concealed form of private sector lending to the public sector. The legislation we are proposing will, therefore, require that such financial assistance should be provided only with our consent. The Government expect local authorities to contain the cost of financial assistance within their existing programmes. We envisage that assistance would normally take the form of annual grants to bridge the gap between financing the costs of a development and the expected rental income, but other forms of assistance will be covered by our proposals.
There are four key matters on which we would normally wish to be satisfied before giving consent. First, the commercial risk of the development should rest substantially with the private sector and, in particular, the local authority's commitment shold not be an open-ended one to meet any differences that might arise between cost and income. Secondly, the level of financial assistance should not exceed in amount or value 30 per cent. of the overall cost of the scheme. Thirdly, the activity of managing and maintaining the houses concerned should be carried out by the private sector participant and not by the authority offering financial assistance. Fourthly, if local authority land is involved, the land should be sold freehold or on a lease of not less than 99 years.
Other factors that we might also wish to take into account in deciding to give or withhold consent are the overall costs of a scheme, the proposed tenure mix, whether tenants should have the right to buy, rights given to the authority to nominate tenants, the likely proportion of tenants receiving housing benefit and the proposed rent levels.

1157
Some authorities are already planning to assist the provision of housing by private sector landlords using certain existing powers. It is important that such schemes should be developed in accordance with the criteria that I have indicated above. We are, therefore, proposing that the Local Government Bill should include a provision that, with effect from midnight tonight, local authorities shall not without our consent give financial assistance to or for the benefit of other persons, including registered housing associations, or enter into agreements to give such assistance in connection with the acquisition, construction, conversion, rehabilitation, improvement, maintenance or management of accommodation for letting or licensing, including hostels and lodging houses. We do not, however, propose that consent should be required with respect to assistance which is expressly required by an obligation imposed by an agreement made on or before today. Financial assistance given without our consent after today will be declared to be unlawful and transactions relating to financial assistance entered into without our consent after today will be declared void. Financial assistance for these proposals includes grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, subscribing for share or loan capital, and the provision of benefits through the transfer of land or other property, the provision of goods, services or facilities, the carrying out of works, and the making of other payments.
We propose to initiate consultations immediately on the details of our proposals. I am placing in the Library copies of a document which sets out the proposals fully and which explains certain exemptions we propose to make from the requirements for consent. Copies of the document and of this statement are today being sent to all local authorities and to the local authority associations. Copies are also being sent to the Housing Corporation, the National Federation of Housing Associations and other interested parties. Meanwhile, I would advise any local authorities and others who are actively contemplating schemes to seek the guidance of my Department or the Welsh Office.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: We are grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to make a statement on this issue. It would have been wholly unacceptable to make such a statement in a written parliamentary reply.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister would not do that.
Mr. Rooker: It has been done in the past and I am thanking the Minister for his courtesy in coming to the House to make this statement.
We accept that the Minister is consulting on this matter and, as the issue is not straightforward, I shall confine myself to a few questions. At the beginning of the statement the Minister said that the Government wish to encourage the provision of private rented housing and that some local authorities which he did not identify are already participating in or contemplating such schemes. There is one well-known scheme which I have visited in Sheffield. Has the Minister's decision to make the statement today and to give the proposals effect from midnight tonight anything to do with the proposals of Sheffield in conjunction with the United Kingdom
1158
Housing Trust and the Nationwide building society? Or is the statement meant to be a positive encouragement to such schemes as the one proposed in Sheffield, which will bring into being about 2,000 new homes to rent? That must be a good thing in anyone's book.
How is the position in Sheffield affected by this statement? It is important that the Minister answers that question. Will he also say how section 58 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 will be affected as a result of the other qualifications in his statement. That section empowers local authorities to assist and promote housing associations. That is perfectly acceptable current legislation and it is used by local authorities. Is there any proposal to remove those powers?
The Minister referred to factors that the Government, or Ministers, would take into account before approving such schemes. I realise that in the circumstances of a brief parliamentary statement the Minister could not go into a lot of detail, especially as he is to consult, but it behoves us to put some questions to him now. Will he say now that he will refuse any scheme which gives no nomination rights to a local authority for its tenants or those on the waiting list? I ask that because, in the annexe to the document that he is placing in the Library, it is clearly envisaged that there are possibilities of there being no nomination rights for a local authority. The thing would not operate unless the local authority was putting some money into the scheme anyway. The Minister should give a categorical answer that he will refuse any scheme that does not allow nomination rights for those on the waiting list.
The right to buy is not available to tenants of charitable housing associations. What will be the Minister's view on that, given the complex nature of the schemes that will come up under the proposals? If the local authority gives money to the private sector in the way envisaged in the statement, will all the funds count against the public sector borrowing requirement? I ask that because it is well known that the Treasury looks on housing associations as the public sector, although legally for housing purposes they are in the private sector. It is important that money that is intended to pull new money into housing in the form of partnership is not immediately stamped on by the Treasury by counting the whole lot as public sector borrowing. Such a proposal, if the Treasury operates it, will kill stone dead the proposal of the North housing association for 4,000 new homes to rent all over the country.
The Minister referred in his statement to the fact that such proposals may come under the assured tenancy scheme, but he did not make it clear that they all will. Will Parliament be asked to approve the landlords as it does under the assured tenancy scheme? If other schemes are worked up for this sort of proposal, when public money and local authorities are involved, will Parliament be asked to approve the landlords? The Minister used the phrase "responsible landlords". Our constituents need to know that those landlords are responsible. One way in which to do that, which is not perfect, is by approval of the House of Commons. That would have avoided for start some of the problems that Labour Members are having in the coal communities over the current problems there.
Is any new money envisaged? Clearly the proposal for assured tenancies is designed to bring new money into housing and not to curtail funds. We want a statement that it is envisaged that this scheme will mean net new money.

1159
Will the fact that the Minister will be looking in detail at the proportion of tenants or prospective tenants on housing benefit as is stated in the annex, paragraph 22, be a possible reason for his stopping Conservative-controlled authorities simply handing over the whole of their housing investment programme allocation to the private sector when they clearly cannot, and do not in the case of authorities such as Bromley, want to cope with their housing problems?
If Ministers are to take a decision about schemes and the number of tenants who may or may not be on housing benefit, what will happen to a scheme and a tenant who may at some time in the future lose his job and have to go on housing benefit? Does that mean that it is foreseen that he may be thrown out of the tenancy if any limit that Ministers have placed on the number of tenants who may be receiving housing benefit in any one scheme is broken? Yesterday, at Question Time the Secretary of State spoke about the need to
"attract private money to run up as many hostels as quickly as possible … high quality hostels and temporary accommodation of all kinds."—[Official Report, 4 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 985.]
As it is envisaged in the statement that hostels will be used, will the Minister kindly give us an example of a high-quality private hostel of the sort envisaged that would help people in greatest need? That is the term that the Minister used. As I understand it from the statement in the annexe, the Secretary of State will be asked to seek details of the tenants before he will consent to a scheme. He may need the details of the tenants in broad terms, but he will still need details. Is this not getting a little bit too much involved in detail for a Secretary of State or other Minister, and will it not encourage a massive bureaucracy if such a scheme gets off the ground?
We assume that the consultation will be genuine, unlike the rate support grant consultation, and we will await a detailed response until the legislative proposals come forward.
I finish with a brief caveat in the sense of a minor complaint. It is that the statement on the annunciator over the lunch period — "Private Rented Housing" — was somewhat misleading. Given our short debate last night. there will be one hon. Member who will be really pleased that the statement did not bring about what he thought it would. That is the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who explained to us last night that one of his constituents, who said that she had been a lifelong Tory voter, would not vote Tory again because of the minor element of rent control mentioned last night. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes said that that constituent is the secretary of a Cabinet Minister. It turns out that she is also the secretary of a Labour and of a Liberal Member, which is even more complicated, but at least it shows that the fears that the hon. Member or Richmond and Barnes may have had about the annunciator title, because it was somewhat misleading, have not been realised.
Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the questions that he has asked about this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is not in his accustomed place. He can speak for himself, as he did very well last night before voting against the Government. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will find, if he looks at the Official Report when it is published tomorrow, that
1160
the threat issued by that secretary, who I am sure serves so many Members in this House dutifully, was that she would never vote Conservative again unless my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes stood up and argued her case. He certainly did that last night—to the chagrin of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.
On the matter of the annunciator's announcement of what the statement was about, we are rather limited in what we can do. It is not a very big screen and cannot contain too many words. It aptly summed up exactly what this statement is about, introducing a fruitful partnership between the public sector and the private sector in the provision of rented housing. There is a limited amount of public sector involvement in rented housing, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr will have seen from the consultation paper and from listening to my statement. That involvement is about 30 per cent. That is an exact description of what we are seeking to do through this positive statement.
Let me begin by apologising for the convoluted nature of part of the statement. I found myself necessarily reading, for legal reasons, sentences of which Bernard Levin would have been proud as they contained a substantial number of words. I can fully understand that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will need time to look at some of its implications. His first question concerned the Sheffield scheme, of which I am well aware. If Sheffield enters into contractual obligations before midnight tonight, the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see on the Front Bench this afternoon, will not be required. Any scheme that is entered into before midnight tonight will not require his consent.
On the hon. Gentleman's second and important point about the Housing Associations Act 1985, section 58 will continue, but subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman's third question concerned nomination rights. Local authorities want these powers. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities said during the last housing consultative council, which is led by the hon. Gentleman's friend, Mr. Betts, that it would like powers similar to those that the Housing Corporation and housing associations already enjoy. If local authorities are to enter undertakings such as these with funding institutions, they will want nomination rights. Of course there will be a mixture of nomination rights and other forms of finding tenants, otherwise local authorities will not want to enter joint funding arrangements.
Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the right to buy. We envisaged that any transfer of council tenants into new forms of tenure must involve the transfer with them of the right to buy, for it is a right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I want to develop new forms of mixed tenure. If we bring in entirely new tenants through the introduction of private funding into rented housing, the right to buy would probably not apply. We want a genuine development of the range of choice, more rented housing and to re-establish the right to rent.
The hon. Gentleman's fifth question concerned assured tanancies. If any assured tenancy landlord applies to be registered, that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is subject to a resolution of the House and can be prayed against. That system will continue.
The hon. Gentleman's sixth question was about new money. That is exactly what the statement is about and what the new policy is concerned with. We are bringing

1161
new money into the provision of housing. If Sheffield, or some other council, enters an agreement with a private sector funding institution and offers to provide 30 per cent. of the cost from public funds, for every £1 that it puts in, it will get £3 from the private sector. Councils' money will therefore go much further. We have to ensure, however, that the private sector is not featherbedded against risk. One or two of the schemes that we have seen so far, including some operated by councils about which the hon. Member for Perry Barr knows, seem to be featherbedding the private sector unnecessarily.
As for housing benefit, paragraph 22 of the consultation paper outlines exactly what we are consulting on. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides whether to issue a consent to a new scheme being introduced by a council, he will wish to take into account whether a disproportionate amount of the tenants who are going into that development receive housing benefit.
We want to ensure that there is more private letting and more diversity of tenure. What I have announced will give councils throughout the country an opportunity to do just that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have further business today before opposed private business at 7 pm. I ask for brief questions, important though this matter is.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will capital allowances for councils be taken into account in this scheme? Will councils suffer under their present restraint? Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), will private sector contributions be counted in the public sector borrowing requirement calculations? However good these schemes are — I commend my hon. Friend on his announcement—is he aware that there is no alternative to a free market in first-time lettings?
Mr. Patten: Indeed. I take my hon. Friend's third point very much to heart. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does as well. As for my hon. Friend's second question, no—any private money will not score in terms of public expenditure.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I warmly welcome the aims that were suggested in the first two sentences of the Minister's statement, but I regret that every following sentence diminished the prospect of achieving those aims. Why are the Government so paranoid about local authorities, which try to ameliorate the quite ludicrous limitation of 20 per cent. of capital receipts for housing expenditure by legitimately using section 58 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, that they try to constrict the use of that Act? May I suggest that there is a real difficulty? The Minister says — it is probably accepted by all of us— that he wants to get more money into housing from outside sources but, by catch-all provisions in the statement, he inhibits the entrance of that money into the market. Surely there is an irony here which the Minister must recognise.
Mr. Patten: I do not see any irony, nor do I recognise it. I should have said in reply to the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P.
1162
Hordern), which was echoed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), that this is a revenue scheme and not a capital scheme. It is a means of funding the revenue differences between financing the cost of building and the expected rental income. We are trying to encourage private investing institutions to invest in housing. That is positive.
When the hon. Member for Leeds, West has had a chance, with his characteristic fairness, to reflect on the statement and its Bernard Levinesque-length sentences, he will see that there is much positive, forward-looking opportunity for local councils such as that in Leeds. I know that the hon. Gentleman is worried about housing problems in Leeds, and I hope that he will encourage his council to consider in a positive way what I have announced.
Mr. John Heddle: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on whether his announcement will be widely welcomed by the Building Societies Association, pension funds and other investing institutions, which, no doubt, could provide the responsible finance to enable there to be an increase in private rented accommodation for those who deserve the right to rent'? Can he confirm that the scheme will also apply to short-term tenancies as to assured tenancies? Can he further confirm that the midnight guillotine is a means of stopping Left-wing councils such as Sheffield and others, which I invite him to mention, raiding the private purse and avoiding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's cash limits by clever, creative accounting?
Mr. Patten: I must leave the Building Societies Association, pension funds and other potential investment institutions to speak for themselves. I naturally hope that they will warmly welcome my announcement. I know that many of those institutions have funds and that, with a certain amount of security and a certain amount of risk, they want to co-operate with local councils to help provide a wider range of rented housing. There are some local authorities, which I can perhaps name—Brent, Camden, Lewisham, Sefton, which I know is a hung council, and Lambeth, for example—which would seem to seek to circumvent the Government's housing policy. After midnight tonight, they will no longer be able to put such schemes into effect as they will have to seek the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Reg Freeson: The Minister has said that the money will not count as public expenditure. He will appreciate that, until now, with one or two minor exceptions in national terms, it has been a strict Treasury rule that any private money which is married to housing association grant or its equivalent should count as public expenditure. Are we to understand from the answer that the Minister has given twice previously that money in the scheme that he has announced today will not count as public expenditure and that when, in future, the Housing Corporation undertakes similar schemes marrying housing association grant to private capital, that money also will not be included as public expenditure? The 30 per cent. figure has been referred to. Before it is finally decided on, may I urge the Minister, with full, serious concern about the housing situation in London, not to stick rigidly to that figure for London costs? If he does, he will get little result in this part of the country, whatever may be achieved elsewhere.
Mr. Patten: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's views as a London Member and as a distinguished former Housing Minister. I take his point about London. If he looks at the statement, he will find in it the word "normally".
As for the 30 per cent. and what is or is not public expenditure, the scheme parallels a scheme which was recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in which additional funding has been given to the Housing Corporation to involve mixed funding — a 30–70 percentage split —between the public and the private sector to help house the homeless and young job movers in London. That is why I believe that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities wanted such a scheme. It was not long ago. heavens above, at the Housing Consultative Council that I was asked to bring about such a positive scheme which would enable all local authorities of all political forms to bring in private money. We have responded very quickly to that and I hope that that has been recognised.
Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams: I welcome the Minister's statement most warmly because it shows the genuine nature of the Government's commitment to the revival of the private rented sector, which is particularly important for inner London. May I ask my hon. Friend, in the course of his consultations, to give particular attention to the special needs of people living or wishing to live in flats who may have difficulty with the finance of co-ownership schemes and other new forms of tenure for flats?
Mr. Patten: That is certainly something which local councils, including the council in my hon. Friend's constituency, can examine. I know that my hon. Friend, with his long-standing interest in the rights and welfare of flat dwellers in London, in the public and private sectors, will put these points to his local council.
Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister has referred to his intention to help various agencies and to ensure that rent levels are within the limit that people can afford to pay. Does he have any comment about the private operators who have bought Coal Board houses when the Coal Board refused to sell to sitting tenants? These private operators, having bought those houses, are now offering shorthold tenancies. That is a breach of tenants' protection. Can the Minister tell us how my constituents who are suffering because of the recent sale of NCB houses will be able to meet the proposed massive rent increases which are to be levied or have been requested by the rent officer? Can he also tell us what guidelines are being offered to rent officers to ensure that rents are kept at a reasonable level of increase and so ensure that rents are not allowed to rise so steeply that people cannot afford to pay them?
Mr. Patten: That point was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) last night during the debate on the orders. I undertook to write to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford. If I may, I will involve the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in that correspondence in an attempt to deal with those points. These are very complicated issues.
Mr. W. Benyon: I warmly welcome the statement but does my hon. Friend agree that the prerequisite for the scheme's success is that the private
1164
sector participants should have confidence in the future? Many of us believe that going down the avenue of assured tenancies is the right way to proceed and that should be greatly extended in future.
Mr. Patten: That is something on which, happily, there is all-party consent. That point was repeated last night by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, and I believe that support for the assured tenancy scheme is also shared by the alliance parties—
Mr. Meadowcroft indicated assent
Mr. Patten: —whose spokesman is giving his assent at the moment. If councils use these schemes in the right way and with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we will achieve that certainty about the future. Central Government, local government and the funding institutions will form a fruitful relationship and partnership to provide more homes for people. That will bring about the eventual breakdown of the barriers between owner-occupation and council housing which damages our society.
Mr. Richard Caborn: May I press the Minister a little further. I am sorry that I have been out of the Chamber, but I have telephoned Sheffield council, which is extremely concerned about the statement, especially in the light of the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). How far must the contracts have progressed in Sheffield, which, as the Minister knows, involve 2,000 builds, in the relationship that he has just described between the public and private sectors? The council wants to know how far down the road the contract must have proceeded. Must there be an absolute position with regard to the signatures on the contract before midnight tonight? I want some guidance on that.
Mr. Patten: It has to be legally binding before midnight tonight.
Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated. This is a very difficult path to travel and he must travel in harness with the Opposition because housing is a very emotive subject.
First, could not my hon. Friend make all the transactions freehold? It is common practice in a lease, which can be binding for 99 years, for many provisions to be written in, and that may dissuade some institutions. I would have thought that freehold was the best way to proceed.
Secondly, does the limit on financial aid—or shall we call it a grant? — of 30 per cent. include the freehold land and the properties thereon? If it does, my hon. Friend will have a great deal of success with the institutions.
Thirdly, has my hon. Friend pondered the fact that for some time local government has been able to sell off parts of council property to institutions, and that my local authority has not sold one scrap?
Finally, does my hon. Friend believe that high-rise blocks of flats in urban conurbations are an ideal purchase for an institution?
Mr. Patten: We are of course consulting and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the inhibiting effect of a 99-year lease. That is an important point and

1165
we hope that people who will respond to the consultation process in the private sector as much as the public sector will make those points.
I do not believe that the "grant"—which is the generic phrase that I have been using, because it is a grant from the public sector—must be a grant simply in terms of money. It could also involve loans, guarantees and land at low cost. That might well be of interest to institutions.
We want to consider my hon. Friend's point about selling off blocks of property in public ownership. Councils up and down the country are doing that—and Oldham and Salford councils have been particularly successful—through their co-operation with the private sector.
I believe that blocks of flats can be very good investments. Those investments can be realised only if there is positive management such as exists in some excellent London boroughs such as Wandsworth.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Whatever the merits of the scheme, does the Minister accept that if it is to have any chance of meaningful success and engender the confidence to which he has already referred there must be some assurance among local authorities that the additional calls upon housing investment will be matched by an increase in the housing investment allocation? A very real assurance is needed with regard to that.
If the Minister is to demonstrate good faith with the private sector, would he at least ensure that some of the more scandalous aspects of the sale of Coal Board houses are properly investigated by his Department so that the House and the country can be assured that we are not simply featherbedding the greedy and being unconcerned about the irresponsible?
Mr. Patten: I understand that British Coal has been reviewing its procedures about Coal Board houses. I have been advised that auctions are to be used as a last resort. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will include him in the correspondence that I am starting with the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).
Mr. Robin Squire: I warmly welcome the statement by my hon. Friend which can be seen as a landmark in the expansion of the private rented sector after many years of decline. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the assured tenancy scheme grows considerably—as most of us would like—that will bring nearer the day when most, if not all, non-resident, private rent landlords will be registered?
Mr. Patten: We want to see responsible landlordism returned to this country in the interests of increasing the supply of homes for those people who want homes in the rented sector. The assured tenancy has an important part to play in that. We are determined as a Government to restore the right to rent.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that the word "midnight" is becoming of special significance to this dictatorial Government? His announcement today will be a heavy blow for those schemes in Sheffield and elsewhere in which there has been cooperation between local authorities and housing associations. Can the Minister tell the Opposition why we
1166
should not tell the people in Greenwich and elsewhere that if the Government are re-elected they intend largely to deregulate the privately rented sector, abolish security of tenure at least for new lettings and bring back once again all the evils of Rachmanism?
Mr. Patten: What the hon. Gentleman should be doing when he goes to Greenwich is encouraging the council leadership to get itself involved in such partnerships between the public and private sector and start bringing in £3 or £4 of private sector money for every £1 of public sector money, which will make the housing investment programme money go that much further.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree with me that sensible and rational debate on this subject has been greatly helped by, and the country should be greatly grateful for, to the positive attitude of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
Mr. Rooker: Thanks very much.
Mr. Marlow: That is the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that is helpful to him.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could answer his question about how he would define the responsible landlord. Finally, would my hon. Friend agree with me that the haemorrhage of private rented accommodation is not going to be staunched until such time as landords who find they have voids find it more profitable to put them on the rented market rather than to sell them?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Perry Barr made it clear in the debate last night that he is dead against the reintroduction of the private rented sector. I deplore that, and I regard him as an extremely dangerous man for that reason.
Mr. Rooker: Thank you.
Mr. Patten: I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman with his general management committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is right. The motif is responsible landlordism. We want to see that back, as much in the public sector as in the private sector.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: When did we ever have responsible landlordism?
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister assure the House that, under the scheme that he has outlined, rent levels will not rise above those of the relevant local authority in the area concerned? Will he assure us that security of tenure will be the same as in the local authority concerned, and will he say why he has come to the House to tell us that he wishes to bring private sector finance into local government as an investment when exactly the same Government and Minister have refused capital allocation to areas of housing stress, and forced more people into the housing waiting list, with resulting homelessness? His panacea is to bring back Rachmanism through the private enterprise scheme.
Mr. Patten rose—
Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister answer my question while he is at it?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions rather than making generalised statements. The

1167
local authorities concerned will be entering agreements with private investors, so will have great control over a range of matters, including rent levels, and that will be clear on the face of any agreement made between the local authorities and funding institutions.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that he wished to see more money put into the provision of housing in the stress areas, and I share that aim. This is one of the ways to ensure that more money is brought into providing homes for people who need them. That is why I hope that the private and public sector involvement in councils will grow.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for the increase in price for moderate-sized houses in London and other places is that there is no possibility of people finding houses to let? Therefore, what he has said is commendable, but limited. Once having started on this scheme, if it is taken up, will he give it a push and, if necessary, make more money available?
Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome. He said that this all looks a bit limited, but it has only been since fairly recently that we have been able to debate the private rented sector without all Labour Members foaming at the mouth, although one or two of them still do, and saying that it was impolite to debate the subject at all. Now, although the Opposition have set their face against the reintroduction of old model private sector renting, they are prepared to talk, as are the alliance parties, about ways to get public and private sector money together. That is a positive message going from the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, as institutions will enter the housing market and will want a return on their money, they will get it either from the local authorities—the ratepayers—or, as the statement makes clear, if there is to be no featherbedding and they do not get it from the local authorities, the money must come out of the tenants' pockets? That will mean a massive increase in rents for those living in such flats and houses. This is another step down the road to de-control. It also does nothing for the crisis facing about 50 coal mining constituencies, where speculators are making money hand over fist, faster than Rachman ever made it, while the Government do not have the guts to relieve the hardship of thousands of tenants affected in this way.
Mr. Patten: We debated this issue last night. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Skinner: I was here.
Mr. Patten: I am so sorry. The hon. Gentleman was here.
Mr. Skinner: We did not get an answer.
Mr. Patten: I am trying to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
The whole point of this scheme is to make it possible for local authorities, by donations and grants, to bridge the gap between the cost of providing houses and the rents. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the system that has been outlined. He has also misunderstood the fact that Labour-controlled councils have been talking to the City and funding institutions in the interest of getting these schemes going.
Mr. John Fraser: The Minister announced that he would choose retrospective legislation to annul agreements entered into after midnight tonight. Does he realise the massive amount of management time that goes into constructing the sort of agreement that Sheffield intends to, or may have, entered into with the private sector to provide up to 2,000 homes to let? Therefore, will the Minister confirm that, provided that a mutually binding, legal obligation has been entered into, which involves giving financial assistance in the terms of the statement, and provided that the legal obligation exists to provide that assistance, he will not attempt to annul such an agreement that has been entered into before midnight tonight?
Mr. Patten: Yes, I can confirm that, provided that an agreement between Sheffield, or any other council, on the one hand, and any set of funding institutions or individual funding institutions on the other has been brought to legally binding fruition by midnight tonight, that will not be covered by future legislation. However, if some local authorities have schemes that they have been working up and they feel themselves to be disappointed by the legislation that my right hon. Friend is about to introduce, they can speedily turn those schemes into the sort of schemes to which my right hon. Friend would readily give consent. We want to encourage that.

Stocksbridge Engineering Steel Works
5.8 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of disc issing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
Yesterday evening, at about 4 o'clock, in my constituency, the managing director of the Stocksbridge Engineering Steel Works announced that 600 of the work people would be made redundant. This was an appalling blow, as I shall demonstrate. This works has been famous throughout the world for a century or more. It has a work force of approximately 2,400 people and hence the redundancies are 25 per cent. of the people who work there.
This move was unexpected. I had written to the managing director the week before. In his letter back to me, he showed not the slightest sign of doing this, and said that he could not give me a definitive statement about redundancies. I had seen the shop stewards committee, and it did not know anything about it.
When one takes into account the fact that the works is situated in a small town of 10,000 people, about 10 miles from the city of Sheffield, and only came into the Sheffield, Hillsborough constituency on the reorganisation of the boundaries in the last general election, one realises that, in a town of 10,000, to have 2,400 people out of work is a sad blow. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is sitting here. He knows what this means to his constituency as well as to mine. It is even more appalling because the town, which is rather tenuously stretched out some miles away from Sheffield, has suffered drastically and the east end of Sheffield lies there still and silent as a result of the depredations of the Government.
The steel workers are now in the gravest difficulty. That great works is the life blood of that small town. It has slimmed down, done everything that the Government wanted and got itself moving as well as it could. It would be remiss if, as the parliamentary representative of the area and now closely connected with the area of the factory, I did not do everything in my power to draw the House's attention to what will be a tragedy for the working people of Stocksbridge Engineering, their families and the general area of Sheffield.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The announcement yesterday by the management of the Stocksbridge steel works that 600 workers are to be made redundant."
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman was right to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 20, but I regret that I do not consider that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order (Procedure)
5.11 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be widely agreed in the House, now that the measure taken by a previous Speaker in departing from the rule for many decades that a point of order is either raised at the moment when the matter occurs with which it is concerned or not at all, that the departure by which points of order allegedly on matters arising in Question Time were postponed until after Question Time but ahead of the normal time for raising points of order with the Chair has not been a successful experiment, for this reason.
It is, in practice, very difficult for Mr. Speaker to say, as Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys did during the bloody assizes,
"I can smell a lie before it is uttered."
It is very difficult for Mr. Speaker to say that a point of order is an abuse, that it is not a point of order at all or, alternatively, that it should not claim priority of time by claiming to be concerned with matters directly arising at Question Time when that claim is wholly spurious, before he has heard the point of order concerned. That is the difficulty and, moreover, it places the Chair in a position that is overtly humiliating and ridiculous. That is good neither for the Chair nor for the House.
I think that the House has tried that change in the rule for long enough and that the time has now come to do one of two things: either to revert to the normal rule, the doctrine of the first occasion in which a point of order allegedly to do with an answer at Question Time is raised immediately when the event to which it is alleged to refer occurs, or it has to take its turn in the queue of any points of order for which notice may have been given in the appropriate time after any ministerial statement.
I am not asking you to respond immediately to this suggestion, but to give it serious thought and then make a statement to the House. I believe that the present abuse has become widely regarded as an intolerable abuse that cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely without redress.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. In the light of the exchanges today on the points of order, I shall certainly reflect on what he has said and I shall come back to the House and make a statement in due time.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful.

Orders of the Day

  Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.14 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
  Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will no doubt endeavour to raise some of the matters in the amendment notwithstanding the fact that you have not selected it, Mr. Speaker.
  The purpose of this Bill is simply stated. It is to correct a technical defect which recent legal advice has identified in the Social Security Act 1986.
  The essence of the advice that we received is that the Act does not give the power we believed existed for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the amount to be paid in maternity and funeral payments. The other prescriptive powers necessary for this policy—notably to determine the circumstances of entitlement to payment — seem clear and undoubted. This deficiency came to light following scrutiny of regulations under the Act by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  As the House knows, the 1986 Act encompassed the most substantial set of reforms to the social security system for 40 years. Today's Bill, by contrast, fits on to one sheet of paper. That, at least, should commend it to the House. Nevertheless, despite its brevity, the Bill is essential if we are to direct effective help with maternity and funeral costs where it is most needed.
  I am in no doubt that the present arrangements for help with maternity and funeral costs are inefficient and in need of reform. It might be helpful if I set out why that is so together with our proposals for the future.
  On maternity payments, the social security system has long recognised the self-evident truth that a baby leads to extra expense. But the current system is clearly unsatisfactory. On the one hand, there is the universal maternity grant of £25. That is expensive in global terms because it is available to everyone, irrespective of their income. But equally it is inadequate because it does not give sufficient help to people on very low incomes. Successive Governments have given the grant such low priority that it has not been increased in value for nearly 20 years. The result of that is that it is now worth a fraction of its original value and it is also disproportionately expensive to administer a very large number of small grants. On the other hand, there are supplementary benefit single payments—based on the practice of totting up the need for each item down to nappies and a plastic bottle. Those payments can be considerably higher but they are restricted to people on supplementary benefit. Those in work on low incomes cannot get any such help at all and rarely have been able to do so in the past, although the Supplementary Benefit, Commission in the 1970s may occasionally have made available discretionary payments.
  1172
  For funeral expenses the picture is similar. Here, too, there is a universal grant — the death grant — paid irrespective of income. But that grant is only £30, and has been frozen at its present rate even longer than the maternity grant. That speaks volumes for its relevance today. When the death grant was originally introduced. it was intended to pay for a simple funeral, but clearly £30 is quite inadequate for that today. The vast majority of people pay for funerals largely on their own, and for them the death grant is an ineffective irrelevance. Despite its individual irrelevance, it is in global terms an expensive irrelevance simply because it is paid to so many people. As with the maternity grants, it is disproportionately expensive to administer in relation to the benefit actually paid out to individuals. It also gives far too little help to those who genuinely have difficulty paying for a funeral and whom we wish to assist more generously. The only people who can get help with the full cost of a funeral ate, again, those on supplementary benefit. People on low incomes in full-time work, or pensioners just above supplementary benefit levels, are excluded. The death grant has in its present form, therefore, almost every imaginable disadvantage.
  I think that there is almost general agreement — I never expect full agreement — that the arrangements I have just outlined are satisfactory. We recognised that in the Green Paper on reform of social security in mid-1985 and decided to replace those arrangements with a more rational system. The solution that we proposed was to concentrate help with maternity and funeral costs on people with low incomes, whether in or out of work, and to pitch that help at a reasonable level.
  The detail of our proposals for maternity and funeral payments was developed as we moved on from the Green Paper to the White Paper and then to the very extensive debates on the passage of the Social Security Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House last year. But throughout that the essence of our proposals has been well known from the outset.
  In respect of maternity assistance, we are proposing a flat rate amount which will make a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing for a baby. Shortly before Christmas I announced that the amount would be £80, being slightly more than three times as much as the current maternity grant. The criteria for payment of that will be straightforward. Those on supplementary benefit or family income supplement will be eligible, subject to the usual rules on capital. From April 1988, recipients of income support or family credit will be eligible in the same way, thus enabling us to avoid the need for a separate income test, and I think that will be generally welcomed. We intend that the payments will be publicised and applications can be handled simply by post where that is desired.
  We have aimed specifically at relatively simple arrangements, picking out the best of supplementary benefit or maternity grant rules, as the case may he. It might be useful to illustrate that point. For example, people will be able to get maternity payments from 11 weeks before the expected birth to three months afterwards — like the maternity grant but rather more generous than the supplementary benefit limits. On the other hand, people will get maternity benefits for adopted babies—unlike maternity grants but like supplementary

  1173
  benefit. I hope that, whatever other differences may emerge this afternoon, the House will acknowledge the logic and fairness of that approach.
  There are two further points I would wish to stress about these maternity payments. First, they will be grants and not loans. Secondly, the payments will not be constrained by the budget of the social fund. If someone meets the criteria, she will get help. I stress these points because, despite the fact that we have made them very clear over the last year or so, there seemed to be some misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when I announced a few days ago that we would be introducing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman on that occasion still referred to
  "Loans for maternity and funeral expenses"
  and to "cash limiting".
  I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is wholly wrong in terms of our proposals and I am surprised that he should have made that comment after the extensive debates we had on the subject last year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain that lapse when he speaks.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister because I think it is now clear that maternity and funeral expenses will be grants but it appears that other payments from the social fund will be loans. I hope the Minister will be able to answer this question before he concludes his speech. We know the fund will be cash limited. Let us say the sum is X million pounds a year cash limit. Will that be paid into the fund each year? If it is, given that most of the payments from the fund will be loans, is it right to assume that the fund will grow considerably in size each year?
  Mr. Major: We shall be making announcements about the size and operation of the fund when we finish further consultation work that is still continuing. Insofar as earlier points about grants are concerned, the maternity and funeral payments will be paid in the fashion I have set out. In terms of much of the rest of the social fund, it will be loans, although there is also the community care aspect within the social fund which will be grants and not loans. One can foresee circumstances where people such as those we shall be concerned with this afternoon may find themselves qualifying for grants under that aspect of the social fund as well. We have a great deal to debate, no doubt at a fairly early stage, on matters of that kind.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that there is further discussion to go on and we wish him well with the Treasury in that discussion. Following on the point of principle raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), what about the practical impact on people on supplementary benefit or other forms of state benefit under the social fund? If they are given loans, how will they pay them back? It is a practical question that has never been adequately answered.
  Mr. Major: We had extensive debates on the social fund during the Committee period in which it was made clear that the loans would be recoverable from future benefits paid to those who take the loans. That is not a novel proposition but was set out in great detail during the passage of the Bill upstairs. That principle is well understood in the House. We still have to debate, no doubt
  1174
  at a further stage, the detailed operations of the social fund when the size of the budgets and related matters are determined.
  I concede that that was the point underlying the observations made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but the basic principles of what is determined and how it will be repaid has been known for some time. Of course, to an extent it will depend on the underlying weekly income benefit rates, which will be set in the autumn of this year, to take effect from April 1988. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that until we reach the normal uprating period no one can be entirely certain what the income support and the other relevant rates will be. I acknowledge the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The levels of those rates will be important and on that point I need no instruction from anyone. In any event, I again stress that we are talking of grants, not loans, because I know that even now — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has just indicated it again —there may be some misunderstanding on those points and I wish to see those misunderstandings removed.
  I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for letting me reiterate the precise circumstances in which the maternity and funeral payments will be made, the nature of those payments, and in particular the non-repayable nature of those particular payments.
  It might be useful to turn to our proposals for help on funeral costs. These proposals will allow everyone on low incomes to pay for a funeral if they do not have the resources to do so, which is something that the present arrangements patently fail to do. We are proposing to pay the full cost of a reasonable funeral. The arrangements will be not unlike those which now operate for some people on supplementary benefit. The big difference is that we are extending such arrangements to other low income groups — that is to say, specifically, to people arranging funerals who are on family income supplement or housing benefit as well as those on supplementary benefit. From April 1988, similar arrangements will apply to those receiving income support or family credit. I hope it will be generally recognised that that is a very significant increase in the amount of effective help which will be made available. I hope that the House in general and the Opposition Front Bench in particular will be inclined to acknowledge that, although I appreciate that they will have other points of difference with us this afternoon.
  Mr. George Park: Would the Minister care to comment on a constituency case brought to me concerning a widow on supplementary benefit who had borrowed £375 from her son and needed repayment of it, but because the funeral bill had been paid she was refused a funeral grant?
  Mr. Major: Under the arrangements that we propose, the lady in those circumstances would be able to have assistance from the fund and would not have been required to borrow that money in the first instance. That illustrates one of the improvements in this system and I think that will be generally helpful. The problem raised by the hon. Gentleman may have other ramifications. Insofar as they affect supplementary benefit matters, if the hon. Gentleman cares to give me their details I will have them examined for him as speedily as possible.
  This proposal means that the number of people who will have cover—I emphasise the word cover—for the

  1175
  cost of a reasonable funeral, assuming they have no other resources to meet the cost, will be increased from about 4½ million to about 8 million. That is why I felt that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is engaging in a seminar with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, was mistaken when he spoke the other day about me
  "insisting on taking powers to cut funeral payments to pensioners and others"
  and
  "forcing more and more of them to build up savings for their funerals."—[0fficiat Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1043.]
  In fact, we are doing precisely the opposite and our proposals will greatly help many people on low incomes. Once again, because of the misunderstanding in the House and beyond—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Frank Field: The seminar my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead was giving me was on this very point. Surely it would make a difference to poor old people being scared about dying only if the grant is paid to other people outside the range of categories that the Minister has spoken about, people who are not on benefit. As I understand the arrangment, people will qualify only if the person who is being buried is poor, not if they are in the other categories. Am I wrong on that?
  Mr. Major: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is the benefit position of the person responsible for arranging the funeral that is relevant.
  Mr. Field: If the widow referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) was not on housing or supplementary benefit, she would still be stuck with the bill.
  Mr. Major: I would wish to look at the precise details of the difficulties faced by the constituent of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park). We are extending the availability of substantial practical assistance with the funeral costs of someone for which a person has responsibility from a cover of 4·5 million people to a potential cover of 8 million people. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to develop his argument on Monday, but that is the practical underlying effect of the Bill.
  Mr. Field: With regard to the figure of 4 million, most of those who will lose the entitlement are old people, most of whom will die fairly soon and will therefore be eligible for the grant. The figure of 8 million is based on those on specific benefits, many of whom are not old and are unlikely to die in the near future. So it is misleading to give those two figures.
  Mr. Major: I think not. The only people who will find themselves at a practical disadvantage are those who do not fall into the qualifying groups, who will lose the £30 flat rate grant.
  Mr. Field: Widows.
  Mr. Major: That may or may not be. If widows are in poor circumstances we wish to help them. Our proposition will offer them more substantial help than before. The £1,000 widow's payment which comes into effect in 1988 is entirely disregarded for capital purposes. The principal loss for a person will simply be the £30 flat rate grant. The gain will be for those on low incomes, who will find that the full cost of a funeral will be met. These days, in any part of the country, that would rarely be less than £350 and
  1176
  would probably average £550. To the many people who worry deeply about meeting that cost, the practical effect of what we are doing will offer considerable comfort. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
  Mr. Field: I accept that.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that after April the £1,000 to which any widow would be entitled will be disregarded? Will he further confirm that, with regard to the constituent of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), any house that the widow may have been left by her deceased spouse will also be disregarded when assessing funeral costs?
  Mr. Major: Yes, I can offer that reassurance to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Minister is kind to give way so often. The move away from insurance may give rise to many anomalies. How will the Department know what insurance moneys are available, either as a result of the death or from insuring other people?
  Mr. Major: It may be that the estate of the deceased, when it is realised, will have the resources to pay for the funeral. As at present, the cost of the funeral will be a first charge on the estate and will be recovered. But it will not, under any circumstances whatever, be recovered from the person who had the loan to carry out the responsibility of arranging and paying for the funeral. Under no circumstances would it be recovered from the person who paid for the funeral upon receiving a loan, but it could be recovered from the estate at a much later date when the estate is proved, if it had the resources in it. I emphasise that the person borrowing the money may be sure that he or she will not be required to repay the money. I think that that was the underlying anxiety in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
  Once again, I must point out that we are not seeking to cash-limit the funeral payments. They, too, will be made to those who meet the criteria without regard to any budget. The payments will not be loans to be recovered from the applicant's own resources. In order to direct effective help where it is most needed we shall, first, take account of sums to be put towards the cost of the funeral and the capital disregard limit. That is in line with current traditional arrangements. We have also made it clear that the lump sum payment of £1,000 proposed for widows will be disgregarded in full. I hope that that is beyond doubt.
  Secondly, we have said that if the estate of the deceased —the point referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Bidwell)—when it is settled, turns out to have money in it to pay for the funeral, the payment will be recovered from that. That is, of course, a long-standing principle that funeral costs are the first call upon the estate of a deceased. However, that is a substantial improvement on the present supplementary benefit arrangements whereby help is not given in the first place if there is sufficient money in the estate. I suspect that that is the point that prompted the hon. Gentleman's question. We have eased that and are giving people without sufficient resources of their own the confidence that a payment for funeral costs will be made when needed, with recoveries from the estate, if appropriate, taking place later. I emphasise again that the recoveries will be only from the

  1177
  estate. There is no question whatever of the funeral payments being loans to be recovered from the present or future income of the applicant.
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. If someone is eligible for supplementary benefit and housing benefit but does not receive them, perhaps because he has not applied, would he still be eligible for funeral expenses?
  Mr. Major: The logic of our proposals is that such a person would be eligible, but I shall check that important point and write to my hon. Friend if what I have said is not accurate.
  The new arrangements for help with funerals will be handled as sensitively as possible and with the minimum of detailed questioning. By using income-related benefits as "passports" we shall avoid a separate income test. That will be generally welcome and helpful. Moreover, we are also cutting some of the detailed rules now existing in the supplementary benefit arrangements which concern the relationship of the person arranging the funeral to the deceased and which "deem" contributions to the cost from other family members. Such unnecessary difficulties will go and I for one will be glad to see the back of them. In future, people will be able to apply for help by post or in person as they wish.
  Those then are our proposals and they represent a substantial improvement on the present situation. However, as I set out in my statement last week, it is clear that a few vital words necessary to implement the policy were omitted from the 1986 Act and that is why we have introduced the Bill.
  The Bill has only two clauses. The first seeks to amend the 1986 Act to remedy the defect I have described. It simply enables regulations to be made, not only to prescribe who should get help with maternity and funeral costs, but how much that help should be—whether in relation to particular times of expenditure or otherwise.
  The second clause contains the short title—the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987. It also contains a wholly standard provision—similar to that in the 1986 Act—relating to Northern Ireland. This would enable an Order in Council to be made, subject to the negative resolution procedure, for purposes corresponding to this Act.
  That is it, as far as the Bill is concerned. It is as brief and as straightforward as that. We shall also—as I told the House the other day—revoke the regulations which were queried by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on grounds of vires. Subject to Parliament's agreement, we intend to lay a fresh set of regulations along similar lines in due course under the powers which this Bill is designed to provide.
  The purpose of the Bill is to enable the much-needed reform of help with maternity and funeral costs to go ahead as intended from April this year. I do not believe that it would be right to abandon that reform simply because of a technical error, unfortunate though that error may be. The right answer to a problem like this is to find a straightforward solution. That is what we have done with this Bill.
  To sum up, there is no doubt that reform is urgently needed. There is no doubt that the proposals I have outlined again today mean that we shall direct effective
  1178
  help to those who really need it. Those most in need will get most help. That must be the right policy and this Bill will enable us to achieve it. I commend it to the House.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: This is a little Bill, almost incomprehensible in its drafting. However, it raises two fundamental issues. One is the abolition of the contributory principle which, before this Government came to office, was always a foundation of the welfare state. The other issue is the operation of the social fund, which remains the most objectionable element of that thoroughly objectionable piece of legislation passed last year, the Social Security Act.
  For the last 40 years, the contributory principle has been central to the social security system. It was the cornerstone of the Beveridge plan in 1942 when he wrote:
  "It is, first and foremost, a plan of insurance—of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence level, as of right and without a means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it."
  It is this which the abolition of the death grant and the maternity grant under this Bill will destroy. This point was made rather forcefully to me a few weeks ago by a former constituent. He wrote to me an entirely unsolicited and aggrieved and angry letter from which I shall quote:
  "Before I retired I was manager of Oldham DHSS and in that capacity I often corresponded with you. You may, therefore, be concerned at the moral and legal implications of the proposed abolition of the contributory death grant. I paid for death grant from 1948 until I retired and then had no more liability for such contributions. The fund, however, still had a liability to pay out on my death. In commercial terms I had a paid-up policy and had it been with a friendly society, the money would be safe. It is this policy that the Government unilaterally intends to abolish.
  Any private company doing this would be taken to court and convicted of fraud. Previously when a benefit has been abolished it has still been paid to those already qualified. What will happen to my money and that of millions of other pensioners? It is now in the fund awaiting payment. If you cannot obtain a satisfactory answer for me, I am eager to appeal to the Parliamentary Commissioner."
  I shall certainly raise that case with the Minister in an effort to get a reply which satisfies my constituent. I shall pursue the matter if the Minister does not wish to give an answer now.
  That correspondent raises a serious point which the Minister did not begin to answer. How can the Government justify unilaterally terminating a right to benefit for which contributions have been made in good faith throughout an entire working life of more than 40 years? The rejection of any such notion and support for the principle of a right to benefit based on contribution irrespective of other circumstances has hitherto been agreed in almost all parts of the House.
  I shall quote one right hon. Member who in Committee moved an amendment to the National Insurance Bill to provide all widows aged 32 or over with a minimum pension of 30 shillings a week. That dates it a bit. The right hon. Member was taxed about widows with large unearned incomes from an inherited estate. The right hon. Member replied:
  "I am dealing with anomalies within the National Insurance Scheme, because under the scheme one gets certain benefits in return for certain contributions. I do not think anyone would say, in dealing with an insurance scheme which gives certain benefits in return for certain contributions—there could be no justification for saying—'You shall not get the benefits because you can afford to look after yourself.' If one has a fire insurance and pays certain premiums and

  1179
  then one suffers a fire, the insurance company does not turn round and say, 'You are not going to get benefit because you can afford to do the repairs yourself.' This is an insurance scheme". — [Official Report, 3 December 1964; Vol. 703, c.810.]
  It is not often that I quote that right hon. Member in support. The right hon. Member who said that is the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the Prime Minister.
  In case any hon. Member thinks that the right hon. Lady's views have changed over the last 23 years, I shall give one more quotation—her reply as Prime Minister to her hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). [Interruption.] Perhaps those Government Members who are chanting might like to listen to what their right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a short time ago. She said:
  "As my hon. Friend knows, the national insurance scheme is not a mere transfer of income. It is an insurance scheme and one's right to benefits from it depends on the contributions made throughout life. It is important to maintain that link."
  The proposal in this Bill and in the Social Security Act 1986 to abolish death and maternity grants is not compatible with insurance logic and proper commercial practice. It is totally inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said 23 years' ago and with what she still says today.
  If Ministers are felons for depriving people of monetary benefits that they have earned, at least they are consistent felons because this is not the first time that they have done that. They have been at it for years. No fewer than six national insurance benefits for which people have contributed have been abolished in the last four years, without so much as an apology. The earnings-related supplement to unemployment, sickness and maternity benefit was abolished in January 1982. Industrial injury benefit was abolished and sickness benefit was replaced in April 1983. Child dependency additions to the short-term benefits were abolished in November 1984. The reduced rate unemployment sickness and maternity benefit and industrial disablement benefit below 14 per cent. were abolished in October 1986.
  It would not be quite so bad if, having cut the benefits, the Government also cut the premiums, but they have increased national insurance contributions by half as much again—from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. Any private insurance agency would scarcely stay in business if it
  offered a deal like that. If that is not bad enough, the Government are now proposing unilaterally to abandon nine more national insurance benefits in the next year or so. Two of them, the death grant and the maternity grant, are the subject of this Bill, but there is a host of others. Children's special allowance is to be abolished and maternity allowance is to be replaced in April 1987. Industrial widows' benefit is to be abolished, widows' allowance is to be replaced, age-related widows' pension is to be abolished, the widows' fund is to be ended, and personal extension of the widowed mothers' allowance is to be abolished, all in April 1988.
  Mr. Major: Since the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the insurance principle and has just listed a number of benefits that he claims will be reduced, would he care to speculate on how much national insurance contributions would have to rise in order to meet all the commitments that he believes should be met and in recent weeks has promised will be met?
  Mr. Meacher: If the Government had not allowed unemployment to increase by between two and three
  1180
  times, the main reason for the overwhelming inflation in social security costs, it would have been perfectly possible to maintain all those benefits and to have had a lot over.
  The Government's attitude to the welfare state is rather like those demolition contractors who are said to make a speciality of legally dismantling buildings on which there are preservation orders. They start by knocking down a fairly innocuous-looking bit but do it in a way that makes another rather more vital bit dangerous. They then call in the district surveyor, who sticks a dangerous structure notice on it and orders them to demolish it forthwith. In doing so, another bit becomes dangerous, so that must be demolished, and so it goes on. Not long afterwards, of course, the whole lot is a heap of rubble. That is what the Government dream of doing to the welfare state. It is not a frontal attack but a constant erosion, nibbling away, bit by bit, until one day the nation will wake up to find that there is little left of any substance.
  Originally, the welfare state was envisaged as a redistributive mechanism between the classes. It was intended also to offer high-quality benefits and services, universally available almost as a badge of citizenship. These principles have been allowed to wither as a result of successive actions by the Government. Under the Government, the redistributive principle has been cut right back by constant reductions in the Treasury supplement, financed by all citizens out of general taxation, from 18 per cent. to as little as 7 per cent. That has thrown more arid more of the funding of the welfare state on to working-class people because of the ceiling on national insurance contributions of one and a half times national average earnings, which minimises contributions from the higher paid groups within the middle class.
  The principle of high-quality universal benefits is constantly undermined by the Government, partly by the regular elimination of universal benefits, as in the Bill, and, as I have described, partly by the Government's constant practice of making the beneficiaries of the welfare state pay more and more in contributions for a smaller arid smaller range of benefits.
  The Bill is a classic case in point. The death grant is to be replaced by means-tested help with funeral costs. It callously ignores the intense emotions that the issue generates in pensioners. The Dignity in Death Alliance has put the matter exactly as that age group feels about it. It states:
  "members take the view that an insurance principle is at stake. People have paid for this benefit throughout their lives and, as with any other, they are entitled to claim it."
  It goes on:
  "there is a total rejection of any form of means testing at the time of death. This is both personally cruel and grossly expensive. The cost of administering a small financial benefit may be higher than its worth."
  The same principle applies to the maternity grant, which is also being abolished. It is somewhat ironic that — I presume that the Minister knows this — it was a Tory Minister who, in 1980, introduced the principle of a universal benefit on the ground that, otherwise, many young mothers would have inadequate contributions to qualify. In addition, a few months later in 1980, the Government published a consultative document called "A Fresh Look at Maternity Benefits" in which all three options that were canvassed involved the retention of a universal maternity grant. If it was right then, why is it not right now?

  1181
  To pose a similar question in a slightly different form, if universal death or maternity grants have always been supported, as they have, by public opinion and indeed by the same Government in an earlier, slightly more liberal reincarnation, why do the Government gratuitously insist on bringing the two benefits within the purview of the odious social fund when there is absolutely no necessity for them to do so?
  The other fundamental issue raised by the Bill concerns the operation of the social fund. There are four major objections to the proposal that still are unresolved. The first is the right to independent appeal, to which the Minister, in one of those classic displays of weasel words for which he is becoming famous, referred in his statement in the House a fortnight ago in explaining why the Bill was necessary. On 22 January — he repeated much the same today — he said:
  "the error arose as a result of an attempt to reflect quickly the will of the other place." —[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1045.]
  The Minister referred to the right of independent appeal. As he probably knows, gratitude in the other place is rather less than gushing, and it is clear why that is so. As was said at the time, it is now proposed that an appeal should lie from the regional DHSS civil servant nominated by the Secretary of State to a senior civil servant, who will not be nominated by the Secretary of State, and that the civil servant should instead be appointed by a commissioner. The question that arises is: who appoints the commissioner? The answer is: the Secretary of State. The commissioner thus appointed by the DHSS will have power to appoint social fund inspectors. Who are they? They are none other than those made available to the commissioner by the Secretary of State. To call that an independent appeals mechanism is to stretch credulity beyond endurance. It is rather like Humpty Dumpty in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Minister — "Words mean what I say they mean." That is not convincing for a drafter of laws.
  Mr. Major: The direct analogy in the social security system is the chief adjudication officer and the adjudication officers, who over many years have determined all sorts of matters and have regularly been recognised to be independent, both during the time that the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished luminary of the Labour Government and today. It is rather unwise of him to cast doubt on the proposition in this fashion.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered the point that I made. He should re-examine my words. He will find that it is all wheels within wheels. There is absolutely no independence in the appeals mechanism.
  It is still left open as to whether an appellant has a right to an oral hearing and representation. Apparently, that matter is to be left to the Secretary of State's directions or the social fund commissioners' guidelines, without parliamentary accountability. In our view, such a basic right as that should be decided by Parliament through regulations.
  Another major unresolved issue concerns entitlement as opposed to discretion. Our view is clear. A discretionary system is undesirable because it leads to variations, it increases the stigma of claiming, especially among the elderly, it is highly complex and it is not even necessarily
  1182
  more flexible. In particular, there are certain benefits for which there should be a clear entitlement to a grant and not a loan. One example relates to exceptionally severe weather payments—if the Minister does not wince at the idea. It is bad enough at present, when payments are made as a grant, that, in the first week of the freeze when the country shivered, they were paid to only a handful of people in one of the 64 weather station areas, and in the third week, when the weather became much milder, the Goverment panicked and paid them to everybody indiscriminately. What would happen if it were a loan? Would pensioners be forced to pay back the money?
  The third unresolved issue concerns the social fund itself, which is the final safety net in the social security system that Ministers notoriously have insisted must be cash-limited. But they have also said — if it is not a paradox — that the fund will not run out. It is still not clear what will happen if the normal day-to-day requests for aid from the fund exceed the budget allocated. Will applicants, however manifest their need, simply be refused assistance or be told that they will get less assistance as the year passes and as the budget dwindles?
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend try to interpret whether the decision of the Minister in respect of funeral and maternity grants means that such grants will have first call on the social fund? — [Interruption.] I fail to see what is so funny about this matter. If they have first call on the social fund, in effect it will mean that all other payments from the social fund could be reduced proportionately because of payments of funeral and maternity benefit that are decided in advance.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting matter. It is for the Minister to reply to it, and I hope that he will do so. I agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that scarce funds could be pre-empted, which means that everyone else will go without.
  The last matter concerns the vexed issue of loans as against grants. It seems that current DHSS thinking — the Minister referred to this but did not answer the point that I am about to make — is that only community care needs will be met by grants; all other needs will be met by loans. If that is so, the question that must be answered is, what exactly is meant by community care? It is a vague phrase and it may mean different things to different people.
  In a recent speech the Minister said — for the first time, I believe — that loans would not be available to claimants until they had been in receipt of income support for six months. That opens up a new and ominous prospect. During the first six months on benefit, claimants are often adjusting to a much lower standard of living, although they are still carrying unalterable expenditure commitments. Already, home owners are suffering the loss of a quarter to a half of their income because of the iniquitous regulation that cuts mortgage interest payments for those on the dole. The latest proposal is a harsh extension of what is becoming the all too frequent practice of this Government of gratuitously kicking a family when it is down.
  As for the level of these two proposed means-tested benefits, the current £30 level, to which the Minister referred, for the death grant has been repeatedly dismissed by Tory Members of Parliament and by the Minister today

  1183
  as so insignificant as to justify its transfer into a limited means-tested category. We repudiate those values and attitudes. If a universal grant in such a sensitive area is too low, we believe that the right approach is not to abolish it but to raise it to a reasonable level. That is why we have pledged to increase it from £30 to £200.
  As for maternity grant replacement, the Government propose that the sum of £80 should be paid out of the social fund.
  Mr. Frank Field: Given that if the Bill is passed there will be machinery to claw back money from the estates of those with adequate funds, would it not be right for the Opposition to increase the sum that is to be paid out but to claw it back from estates with adequate funds?
  Mr. Meacher: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is contradicted by the eloquent testimony of the Prime Minister, for which I have a great deal of sympathy: that if people pay for something on an insurance basis, they are entitled to it, irrespective of their total resources. However, I think that we should look at that point again.
  As for the maternity grant, in 1983 the average single payment for maternity items was £60, in addition to the £25 grant. A grant now of £80, therefore, represents a cut in assistance for the average mother on supplementary benefit, even at 1983 prices, let alone at 1987 prices. I hope that the Government will reconsider this sum so that at least there will be no loss. I hope that they will also reconsider their very regrettable decision that mothers who are under 16 years of age should no longer be entitled to assistance with maternity expenses in their own right.
  We reject the Bill. Unilaterally, it abolishes benefits to which people have a right, having earned their entitlement by contributions that they have made throughout their working lives. We reject it, too, because it is designed to consolidate a cash-limited social fund which, coming from this Government, is an insult on top of the injury of having allowed poverty to double in the first place.
  This may be a minor measure but it has an ugly parentage in the Fowler Social Security Act of last year. For the sake of the people of this country, I pledge that we shall sweep away both this and its parent as soon as we come to power.
  6.4 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am at something of a loss to know how to respond. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) talks about a kick in the teeth for families in crisis, but I have always felt, ever since I took my first job working for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that the families who are constantly kicked in the teeth are those working on low incomes. It is precisely those who are not receiving supplementary benefit or income support who stand to benefit most from many of the changes in the Social Security Act 1986 and from the modifications that are being made to the death and maternity grants. It is to precisely those people that I want to refer.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the contributory principle. I was not sure whether he would develop this argument and say that in order to protect the contributory principle and to ensure that all those with maternity or funeral needs should be properly provided for he would extend maternity and death grants — at the rate of £80 for maternity grants and several hundred
  1184
  pounds for funeral grants — to all those who had contributed, in which case the £28 billion spending programme appears likely to cause older people much more anxiety than their present very real concern of sonic of them that they may be unable to meet their funeral costs.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Government's attitude to the welfare state in terms of knocking down an edifice. The welfare state has developed in recent years in such a way that now it is rather like a chaotic, higgledy-piggledy housing estate through which it is quite impossible to find one's way, with muggers around every corner. Coherent, clear planning, so that people know what benefits are available and how they can be obtained, is long overdue. In my view, that is precisely what the Social Security Act has sought to achieve.
  The hon. Gentleman also read out a list of benefits that he suggested the Government are modifying. I should be interested to know whether he can recite the precise details, thresholds and amounts of each and every one of those series of benefits. I could not do so. I doubt whether even the respected hon. Member for Birkenhead could go through precisely all those benefits and describe how they work.
  The complexity of the present system leads inevitably to unfairnesses and to the need for an army of welfare rights advisers to help people to discover how the single payments system works. It has led to enormous inequalities in different parts of the country, dependent on whether one is clever enough to work out these vast complexities by going through paragraphs of regulations and matching one's predicament to all those regulations.
  The social fund is both a much more flexible and a much more simple response. Above all, it will be understood much more clearly by ordinary claimants, as opposed to welfare specialists. That is a laudable goal. At the same time, more help will be given to that long overlooked group of people, those who are on low incomes.
  The new help that is to be provided for funeral expenses will be much more realistic. The £30 grant hardly covers the cost of two bouquets of flowers. Many people suffer great anxiety about how to finance a funeral under the existing arrangements. Ludicrous restrictions are placed on those payments concerning the relationship of the claimant to the deceased. Furthermore, if there is deemed to be money in the estate, even though it is inaccessible. claimants are not entitled to help. The death of a relative causes an emotional crisis for many people. It can also create a financial crisis until the financial position of the deceased finally emerges. These arrangements will ensure that more people will benefit and that those involved will be provided with a sensible and realistic benefit.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to widows, on the basis of the case that was mentioned earlier. The fact that the widow's £1,000 will be entirely disregarded, let alone the value of any property that may have been left by the spouse, will make a substantial difference.
  Mr. Frank Field: That was an important statement, but the truth is that most widows will not be helped because their pension will take them just above the level of entitlement. Their husbands would probably also have been above that level and therefore not eligible for help.

  1185
  The awful fact is that, although we can say that the £1,000 will be disregarded, that sum will have to be used to pay the funeral bills.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is also making the better point that, because many widows may just be above the supplementary benefit level and the rigid cut off, they have not stood to gain at all in the past. Now, however, because of the ability to help more people including those who are entitled to housing benefit or family credit, there will be a gain from a much fairer and a much more appropriate mechanism.
  Mr. Frank Field indicated assent.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the Dignity in Death Alliance and its concerns. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that thinks it can buy off every interest group with a promise to meet all their needs, and solve every problem with an open cheque book, so long as it is not the Labour party's. I can appreciate his view. However, the elderly are most fearful of inflation running at 25 per cent. again, because they will be unable to predict what will happen.
  The hon. Gentleman dared to raise the question of exceptional weather payments. I wondered what benefit the elderly had had from exceptional weather payments when the Labour party was in government. Exceptional weather payments have been introduced on a statutory basis only since this Government came to power.
  The £25 maternity benefit has become irrelevant in terms of the total costs involved. It has been suggested that a pregnant woman on social security can claim a single payment. A paper has been circulated suggesting that the average single payment claim amounts to £60. To that is added the £25 maternity grant, which would mean that pregnant women will be worse off with the new grant of £80. That is entirely fallacious, because only a fraction of pregnant women on social security know, understand or claim the single payment. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be able to give an estimate in his closing remarks. I understand that fewer than a quarter of pregnant women on social security claim the single payment. Again one sees a gross inequality in the distribution of the benefit.
  Ms. Jo Richardson: If the hon. Lady is right in saying that only a fraction of women claim that amount, would it not be better if the Government advertised a take-up campaign? The point is that that amount is available for claiming.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse efforts by anybody to promote awareness of benefits, but the hon. Lady will have seen the lists of single payments. It is difficult even for someone with two degrees to understand the system. How will somebody who has difficulty making ends meet and managing their family cope? The Government must ensure that realistic, reliable and proper payments can be claimed. When these benefits extend to those on income support or family credit and to other low income groups, they will ensure that greater help is given to the average mother in these categories.
  Ms. Richardson: Why not increase the benefit?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Lady will explain in the way that her party always does how, were
  1186
  her party ever to come to power, every benefit would be doubled or trebled. I have already suggested that her party believes that all problems can be solved with a cheque book: whatever anybody offers, offer more. I do not share that political philosophy. A responsible Government must look at the people who are genuinely in need, and target realistic and understandable help at those groups.
  Much concern has been expressed about mothers under the age of 16. There were 1,390 such mothers in 1985. They are a worrying group who have a higher infant mortality rate and suffer greater health risks than other groups. It is not true that these mothers would receive no help under the present arrangements — they would simply be deemed to be their parents' children. If a 15-year-old mother of prosperous parents had a child, she would not be entitled to the £80, but if her parents were on family credit or income support she would be so entitled.
  There are those who would seriously question whether a 15-year-old—or even a 16 or 17-year-old—should be deemed to be an autonomous individual in terms of social security regulations. That is not the situation in many other European countries, or in America.
  Mr. Corbyn: Would the hon. Lady return to reality for a moment? Is she aware that, when a woman under 16 becomes pregnant and gives birth, it occasionally results in enormous family tension, and sometimes she is thrown out of the house? Under the Government's proposals, that woman and her baby would go without any assistance whatsoever, unless they could find a friend, relative or neighbour who was prepared to help them. Is that what the hon. Lady wants?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman seems unfamiliar with what happens in social services departments. Having been a social worker for many years, and a magistrate in a juvenile court, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that until the age of 17 years a child is the responsibility, if the parents are not responsible for her, of the social services department. Any pregnant 15-year-old who did not have the support of her parents would be a high priority for any social services department. If the hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in the social service department in his constituency, I am sorry for him. The Surrey social services department would make a high priority of any such case, and the 15-year-old would be given the fullest consideration. To regard her as an independent unit financially is misleading, because that might imply that she was an independent adult, which may not be in the longterm interests of her or her child.
  Much was made of the social fund and appeals for the social fund. The Labour party seems to have lost all perspective of how social security payments are conducted. The social security budget has increased by 35 per cent. since 1979 half of that is attributed to the real increase in rates of benefits. The basic mechanism of our social security system is the benefit rate, not the single payment or special allowance. The Opposition want a system of endless single payments and special arrangements. That would lead to a greater sense of injustice and unfairness. The point of the social fund is to not let this ludicrous tail wag the dog.
  In view of the way that single payments have escalated — more worryingly, the regional and patch variations in single payments claims — one cannot consider it a fair or

  1187
  just system. We should have a full and independent tribunal system for the basic benefit, which would remain untouched.
  I welcome the fact that the Government felt able to show their ever-flexible approach by responding to concern about the social fund, thus enhancing the whole appeals mechanism. The question of appeals must be kept in perspective. In 1984 there were 3 million single payments. Some may think, looking at the total number of benefit claims, that that is a remarkable situation, given the time, human error and delay involved in each claim. Out of the 3 million single claimants there were 37,000 appeals. Of those 37,000 appeals, 8,000 cases were found in favour of the appellant. In other words, in only one quarter of one per cent. of cases was the single payment altered. In view of the time, expense and waste involved, one must look for some element of proportionality, and look to the main need of the social security system, which is reliable and secure with easily available benefits — benefits which are available not only for those on income support, but for those on family credit.
  I appreciate the Government putting right this technical deficiency. I welcome the fact that the Government have remedied this fault in the social security system, within its complex, disorganised and inaccessible benefits. They corrected the defect in terms of allowing benefit to be available for those on low incomes, whether they are in or out of it. Above all, they had the courage to put right what has been wrong with maternity and death payments over many years.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall follow some of the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). In the earlier part of her speech, she gave an excellent analysis of the complexities and anomalies that seem to be inherent in the present social security system. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the aim is to end the artificial distinction between national insurance and tax and to integrate tax and benefits further into a basic benefits system. That will go a long way towards redressing some of the injustices that occur, lessening complexities and increasing take-up of benefit. Sadly, despite the social security reviews, that is not the line that the Government have adopted.
  This Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill might more fairly and accurately be subtitled the Tip of the Iceberg Bill. I suspect that over the next 18 months—and perhaps beyond, if the Conservative Government exist longer—there will be a stream of orders, legislation and correcting instruments as the injustices, complexities and anomalies of their system become apparent. The Minister stressed that the Bill deals with technical defects but that does not let the Government off the hook for the general shortcomings in the legislation. The very fact that the Government have had to introduce this measure underlines many of the deficiencies which have been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House in different ways and at different times. The SDP/Liberal alliance has outlined in its reasoned amendment its objections to the Bill and why alliance Members will vote against it.
  It is important to consider the effects of the Government's proposals in the context of previous benefit levels. Mothers who are in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefits are to receive grant
  1188
  of £80, which is low. At the moment at least mothers in the low income category can apply to the DHSS for single payments to help with some of the special costs associated with their children.
  It is worth setting in context how much slippage has occurred. In 1983, the average single payment made by the DHSS was £60, making with the £25 maternity grant a total grant of £85. In cash and real terms the Government's proposals in the Bill will give mothers on supplementary benefit substantially less than they were receiving both in cash terms and real terms in 1983. That is wholly unjustified. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will deal with that point.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West and, I believe, the Minister have pointed out that girls under 16 will not receive any help unless their parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Those girls are a particular at-risk group. The Minister has said, either in the House or elsewhere, that he would again look at that category. I hope that he will tell us more about his thinking along these lines.
  The Government propose to cover the costs of "reasonable" funeral expenses. The Minister acknowledged that "reasonable" expenses will not be much less than £350 and in many areas could easily be £550. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) correctly said in art intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that it might be better to give a higher level of flat rate grant which could be claimed back out of the deceased person's estate. There are good reasons for doing that. First, it would target more help on those most in need and, secondly, in human terms, it would overcome much of the distress caused by bureaucratic and administrative machinery at a time of bereavement and, therefore, a time of pressure for family, relatives and loved ones. The Government are wrong in imposing an essentially means-tested benefit, with all its bad connotations, on those in an especially vulnerable position who are suffering from a particular and peculiar distress.
  Many issues on the social fund remain outstanding. Some benefits are given at ministerial discretion. In some cases—for example, cold weather payments—one might want a discretionary entitlement. Whatever flat rate uniform system is adopted by any Government, it will never be able adequately to take account of the vagaries of the weather and people's different needs. There is a strong argument to be made in favour of providing for an element of local discretion in granting severe weather payments. If such discretion had been applied this year, it would have overcome many difficulties.
  It is nonsense to cash-limit at social fund level and local level many of the entitlements that people will claim. Logically, cash-limiting flies in the face of what should be the open-ended discretion of a local officer. The Minister did not clarify to the satisfaction of the House exactly how cash-limiting and the mechanisms of the social fund will operate. He said that much will depend on continuing discussions on the level of benefits to be set. That is saying the obvious. Clearly, if benefits are generous, some of the difficulties which have been foreseen may not materialise. One can only go by the Government's record. Their record on maternity benefit, which has fallen in real terms since 1983, does not fill one with confidence about the position of claimants when the levels of various forms of benefit which are crucial to the future operation of the revised

  1189
  social security system are set. As the Minister has made clear, maternity and funeral expenses will remain as grants, and he has commented on the confusion that there has been about that. I accept that on other occasions I have been wrong about some of the details of the legislation. The hon. Member for Birkenhead said that he was wrong on one item, when he questioned the Minister. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead has made clear, in bringing forward the Bill, the Minister is admitting that he, too, has been wrong in the past, as have some of the civil servants who spend their careers working on the social security system. The commonsense implication of that is that if people who are paid to work on the social security system make mistakes, where on earth does that leave the claimant when the new social fund is introduced and the new method of calculating benefit levels is implemented? How on earth are the staff at local level and the claimants to understand it when those involved in the passage of this legislation—including some of us who gave evidence to the social security review—have difficulty with it? What hope has the claimant?
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman has been very kind to the Government. If they had accepted amendments in Committee to put in the sum of the benefits, we should not have had to consider the Bill today.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and entirely endorse what he has said.
  We have watched the writhings of successive social security Ministers as they have fought their way through the legislation, and are beginning to see reality at the end of the tunnel in terms of the implications of this legislation. However, perhaps a wee bit more humility would have been a good thing. I have already described this as tip of the iceberg legislation, and we shall see this performance being repeated at the Dispatch Box for several months, and possibly years ahead.
  A further implication of the social fund is that its allocation will be divided into two parts, covering grants and loans. Will the loans be topped up each year or will the Government expect it to be largely self-renewing as claimants repay the loans that they received in the past? The Government's position on that matter is not at all clear. We could reach the stage where a substanital proportion of claimants do not have the means to pay back the money. Given that the social security system is supposed to provide a safety net and that, therefore, somebody in the qualifying category is already at safety net level, how on earth can that person be expected to repay to some other source, in this case the Department of Health and Social Security, moneys which would then leave them below that safety net level? If that is the implication of the system, it reflects very badly on the Government's entire approach.
  In conclusion—I shall be brief because of the time constraints—some of the issues that the hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out were highlighted by the social security commission: for example, the generally unsatisfactory nature of so much that remains outstanding. In his opening speech the Minister discussed the much-needed reform of maternity benefit. It is worth bearing in mind that on 6 April the Maternity Alliance is holding an emergency rally in Westminster Hall. The Maternity Alliance points out:
  1190
  "In 1975 it seemed that we had the foundations of a realistic structure of benefits and rights which would give all mothers financial security around childbirth and the opportunity to continue to work without disadvantage. Now the very foundations are being undermined."
  The Bill is simply a further confirmation of that rather sad conclusion, and we shall certainly vote against it.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I wish to intervene briefly in the debate to speak on behalf of a group of people who, it is proposed, will receive no benefit or help under the new regulations.
  About two weeks ago a young couple from Westlea in Swindon came to my constituency surgery and told me of the death of their only child, at the age of 18 months. The cost of the funeral was £180 and they received £9 from the state, which is the benefit that is available to people in respect of the death of a child. Both of those people are working and, therefore, they would not come within the scope of the proposed system. However, the cost of the funeral will hit them extremely hard, at a time of very great tragedy. There can be no greater tragedy than the death of one's only and very young child.
  Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister whether, since we are led to believe that the social fund will not be budgetarily restricted in respect of those grants, there is any possibility that such grants or loans could be advanced to those people for whom the need is clear, but the criteria are not met.
  I should also like to comment on the "reasonableness" of funeral expenses. The regulations of 1986 that will govern the whole procedure are littered with the word "reasonable" in relation to funeral expenses. However, there is a risk of monopoly pricing coming into this matter, in relation to firms of undertakers, especially in small country towns. After all, it is unlikely that the bereaved will shop around for a competitive tender for a funeral. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the Government to define what they mean by the word "reasonable" in terms of the pricing and the various aspects of a funeral for which an undertaker is responsible. At the same time, the Government should bear in mind that the maximum will easily become the minimum, as far as charging and pricing are concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a moment to refer to those two points.
  In conclusion, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, does not accept the maxim that resources should be directed to where they are most needed. When listening to him, one clearly understands that he is in some kind of crazy auction, in which the price or charge that is mentioned will be doubled and trebled to try to win the auction, which is electoral practice. The hon. Gentleman prefers to spend without regard to what the nation can afford and those who have heard him tonight talk about £200 for the death grant can reasonably expect it to be £400 before the next election, and, no doubt, £600 before the one after that, and to go on increasing, not in line with inflation, but with his own despairing hopes of being elected as the Minister responsible for those matters.
  I suspect that the shadow of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is not far away because there has been no bidding-up this evening, but it will come. The consequence of that will be rapid inflation and rising unemployment which will hit hard at those people we are trying to protect today.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to say briefly that the Bill is perhaps a start of many more Bills of this type. In Committee on the Social Security Act 1986, Labour Members consistently pointed out the dangers and the ineffectiveness of the social fund in meeting social problems, and the fact that, because the fund was cash-limited, at the end of the day somebody would lose. I get the feeling that the Government are making a pre-emptive strike by saying, "Yes, we shall fix the amount of the payments for maternity and funeral grants; they will be the first call on the social fund." We need an undertaking from the Minister that the social fund will not be reduced accordingly and that other benefits will not be paid. If that is to be the case, people who are not in receipt of funeral or maternity benefits, but eligible for other benefits or loans will not be eligible for them. Therefore, the problem will he exacerbated for those groups. We require an answer to that question from the Minister.
  My second point relates to the maternity grant. It is simply not good enough in 1987 to discuss taking away the right to the maternity grant from mothers with newborn children and to give it instead, in effect, by means-testing, to a limited number of people. In addition, that benefit will be the lowest anywhere in Europe for newborn babies. The social difference between children born in high rise flats in constituencies such as mine to poor parents who are unemployed and likely to he unemployed for a long time and those born in the leafy suburbs will become greater. We are moving towards the meanest form of welfare state that could ever be dreamt of and the ghettoisation of the poor by denying them opportunities from birth.
  Hon. Members have spoken about how mothers under the age of 16 will be dealt with under this legislation. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) misunderstood my point lamentably: I have complete confidence in the social services department in my constituency. It does a good job and meets enormous difficulties. I wish that the hon. Lady would not support a Government who insist on cuts being made in the social services available for my constituents. Her remarks would make more sense if she were prepared to be honest about that.
  The Government should consider direct payment to mothers under the age of 16. The problem will not be solved merely by wishing away or by forcing a young woman into social services care. I do not see why young mothers cannot receive that help instead of being persuaded—that is what social services departments will do—to rely on their parents for support. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a small but serious problem for the 1,390 people who were affected by this last year.
  When the funeral grant was introduced in 1948 it was a reasonable proportion of the cost of a funeral at that time. It has not been increased anything like in line with inflation or, indeed, with the exorbitant costs that undertakers charge for funerals. There are ways of getting round that problem, such as through municipal funeral undertakers which I would recommend and support strongly. But we must understand the genuine anxiety of elderly people that they cannot be buried with decency. That is a serious problem and prays on the minds of many elderly people.
  1192
  The Minister tells us that the number of people who will be covered by these arrangements will increase from 4·5 million to 8 million. Are those 8 million predominantly pensioners or people in receipt of housing benefit? Is housing benefit the bench mark for that decision? If they are in receipt of housing benefit, they are more likely to be young people who, fortunately, are not likely to die in the near future. In that case the Minister has grossly exaggerated the number of people who will benefit from his scheme as a whole.
  The Social Security Act 1986 was one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation in the past seven years. It has helped to destroy the foundations of the welfare state, which was envisaged to provide decency and security through birth, life and death for all people, irrespective of their ability to pay. Now we see means testing writ large throughout the welfare state.
  The Bill is just the start of a series of measures which will be introduced to placate the genuine, united opposition to the Social Security Act, but that will continue during and after the general election, when I hope that we will remove that particularly odious legislation.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful for this brief moment to speak in the debate. I am lamentably ignorant about this subject and I take part because I wish to raise an important matter of constituency interest on behalf of a constituent.
  I do not understand how the Labour party can treat the legislation with such seeming contempt when it is absolutely right that we should aim to target these benefits on those who need them most. It is critical that we should give to those in need and help the helpless. We should give them real assistance rather than adopt the scatter-gun approach and give many people a little.
  I wish to deal with the maternity grant in particular. It is an important part of our family legislation. I agree with Opposition Members that it has been at a lamentable level for some time. I greatly welcome its increase to £80. The family is an institution which is absolutely critical and essential to our social and moral well-being. The Government, to give them their due, have tried to promote the interests of the family, but a baby involves considerable extra expense. It is proposed that the maternity grant should be raised from £25 to £80 and should be for those on supplementary benefit or on family income supplement. That is an excellent aim, as it will help people on low incomes who have exceptional expenses in a more flexible way. It is about those exceptional expenses that I should like to speak.
  I understand that no extra money is payable to handicapped and disabled children until they reach the age of two. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows from our correspondence, I have in my constituency a lady called Mrs. Manning who has a seriously handicapped child of six months. Every Monday she must take the child to a hospital outside our local health authority to receive specialised treatment. The round journey covers 42 miles. Five times a day the child must have specialised therapy from Mrs. Manning. It takes over an hour on each occasion to feed the child because it is unable to suck properly. No attendance allowance is available until the child reaches the age of two, and Mrs. Manning cannot rely indefinitely on the goodwill of her neighbours to look after her other child while she takes the baby to hospital.

  1193
  I understand that the Department must make a medical judgment on these matters and I completely accept what my hon. Friend said in his letter to me that the child's needs must be substantially in excess of those normally required by a child of the same age and sex. Given any normal criteria, there must be no shadow of doubt that this child is grievously handicapped and at a serious disadvantage, and that the mother is in considerable distress and finds it difficult to provide for her child.
  Would it not be possible, given the flexibility that these measures undoubtedly accord in terms of payment, to consider a special type of payment— I know that my hon. Friend is trying to get away from that in some areas— which could cover children who are defined as seriously handicapped, just as they are now defined as not being sufficiently handicapped to warrant additional help?
  6.48 pm
  Ms. Jo Richardson: I have considerable sympathy with the case of Mrs. Manning that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just raised. Some years ago I had a parallel case and I remember how heart wrenching it was to see the family struggling to care for their child and to cope with the expense. The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were a little odd, because he said the opposite of what I intend to say. He congratulated the Government on being the party of the family; I say that, if the Government think that they are the party of the family, that is the biggest con that I have ever heard.
  Families are essentially about mothers and children who are the most vulnerable people. For mothers pregnancy and preparing to have a child is an expensive business. At some stage it means giving up one's job, rejigging one's life and looking ahead to the needs of the unborn child. Many Conservative Members are fierce defenders of the rights of the unborn child in another context when they oppose the legitimate right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. However, they are less than supportive of the needs of the unborn child, the pregnant woman, the new baby and its mother when it comes to handing out cash support to ensure that that child has a decent start in life.
  We have heard much tonight on both sides of the House, but especially from the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), about the plight of the under-16-year-olds. We must remember and emphasise that the Social Security Act 1986 has virtually written off under-16-year-olds altogether. It is all very well to say that the Social Security Act regards under-16-year-olds as the property or responsibility of their parents. I take issue with the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West, who implied that under-16-year-olds, whom I would call young women, are not people to whom an independent allowance could be given should they become pregnant.
  I am an absolutely devoted fan of EastEnders. Whatever happens, I will not miss an episode. Michelle is the under-16-year-old girl in the series who became pregnant and who has now had the baby and is working to pay off the debts which her unemployed father accumulated to try to help her out. That shows that people of that age are responsible and can take responsibility. If they can take responsibility, they are entitled to maternity grant instead of being denied it as they are at present.
  1194
  Many hon. Members have said that the present proposals for the £80 grant is less than what, on average, a woman can claim now, when there is a £25 universal grant as of right. I agree with that and campaigned even under a Labour Government for the grant to be increased, but together with the £60-worth of other supplementary benefits.
  It is no good saying that not everyone receives the £60-worth of benefits. Some receive it and others should, as the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West acknowledged. Why make the benefits worth £80? Why not make them worth £100 or £125? In its last manifesto, the Labour party proposed £125. That would at least mean that people would not receive less benefits. However, we are also transferring the payment of maternity allowance to employers and restricting payment to women who are in work and who are paying national insurance contributions up to the point at which they can claim. Even more seriously, we are abolishing the right of pregnant women and their babies to free milk and vitamins. That is absolutely terrible. At least poor families used to have the right to free milk and free vitamins. Now, we have virtually said that that right should go.
  In recent years there have been two well publicised estimates of the cost of a new-born baby. One was in the Daily Mirror in 1984 which stated that the cost of caring for a new baby was about £447. The other was in the magazine Parents in 1985 which estimated that £702 was the cost of baby clothes and equipment.
  We lag badly behind some other European countries. We hear from Conservative Members how generous the Government are being, but in Belgium the grant for the first child is £395, for the second it is £272 and for the third it is £146. In Denmark, the allowance runs to a maximum of £155 a week. Imagine it! The allowance is financed out of general taxation. In France, the allowance is £70·22 a month. Those benefits are all much more generous than those given in Britain.
  I am wearing a badge which was given to me by the Maternity Alliance which, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, will be holding a rally in Central Hall on 6 April. The badge says:
  "It is better to have a baby in Finland."
  Why Finland? The answer is that in Finland every pregnant woman, as of right, gets a baby basket with all the clothes that she and the new-born baby will need. The baby basket converts into a carry-cot. That is a present given by the Government of Finland to pregnant women. All that happens in Britain— I am informed by my secretary who has just had a baby—is that a pregnant woman is given one disposable nappy the first time that she goes to the hospital. How mean can we get? We should deal much more generously with pregnant women and babies because they are so important to us.
  The maternity emergency campaign will attract an awful lot of support from pregnant women and women who have been pregnant or who may become pregnant. I am told by the Greenwich branch of the maternity emergency campaign that there are now more than 71,000 women in that borough under 50 years old, some of whom will be affected by this Bill. Some 4,800 of them are unemployed and of childbearing age.
  This is a miserable little Bill. We shall oppose it with all the might that we can muster, and we shall do our best,

  1195
  when the remaining stages are taken, to amend it. In the meantime, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.
  6.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): This debate has rightly concentrated not on the technical error in the regulation-making powers but on the policy which was known and clearly stated as long ago as the publication of the White Paper and widely debated during the passage of the main Bill. We have concentrated on particular aspects of that policy and I shall answer the points that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) commended Finland because it hands out a basket with baby clothes. Most people would wish to choose and buy their own baby clothes. However, comparison with Europe is misleading. Five European countries make no maternity grant whatsoever. Furthermore, it is misleading to add the £25 of the present grant to the £60 which a small minority of those on supplementary benefit receive from single payments as only between one quarter and one fifth of new mothers receive that £60. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison.
  I have a few minutes to answer the points made in the debate. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should be so conservative as to hark hack to, and thoroughly misunderstand, the national insurance contributions principle. The principle, as he should appreciate, is not the same as a private insurance system. It is a pay-as-you-go system and it raises £21·5 billion worth of contributions to pay £24 billion worth of benefits. He told the House yet again that if Labour came to power there would be more taxes and more national insurance contributions for less well-targeted benefits.
  My answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on whether the social fund budget would run out is that it will not. Funeral and maternity payments will not be constrained by the budgets. They are entitlements to those who are within the passported groups that we have been discussing. The money to he given to them will not eat into the funds. I do not have time to explain that more fully, but I wish to make it clear that there will be a standing balance.
  If the family in the tragic circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) outlined is a low-income family in work, it is capable of falling within the passported groups for the first time. We are widening eligibility from people on supplementary benefit to include people on family income supplement, family credit—I do not know whether the family that my hon. Friend mentioned falls into that category—and housing benefit.
  It must be recognised that maternity and funeral payments are, in the present system, long out of date. That problem is being tackled and money is being targeted on people in real need. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put That the Bill be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 169.

  Division No. 82

  7 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Ancram, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  1196

  Baldry, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hayes, J.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Benyon, William

  Henderson, Barry

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hill, James

  Blackburn, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Irving, Charles

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Jackson, Robert

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Knowles, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Lang, Ian

  Browne, John

  Latham, Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Budgen, Nick

  Lester, Jim

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Butterfill, John

  Lightbown, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lilley, Peter

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

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cash, William

  Lord, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Chope, Christopher

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Churchill, W. S.

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Maclean, David John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Coombs, Simon

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Cope, John

  Madel, David

  Corrie, John

  Major, John

  Couchman, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Malone, Gerald

  Crouch, David

  Maples, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Marland, Paul

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Marlow, Antony

  Dicks, Terry

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Dover, Den

  Mates, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Evennett, David

  Mellor, David

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Merchant, Piers

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Farr, Sir John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Favell, Anthony

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mudd, David

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gale, Roger

  Neale, Gerrard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Newton, Tony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Norris, Steven

  Greenway, Harry

  Onslow, Cranley

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Grylls, Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  1197

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Pawsey, James

  Stokes, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Sumberg, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Powley, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Price, Sir David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tracey, Richard

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Viggers, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Walters, Dennis

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Ward, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Watson, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Silvester, Fred

  Wheeler, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Woodcock, Michael

  Spencer, Derek

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Squire, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Francis Maude.

  Stern, Michael

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Alton, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Anderson, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ian

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clay, Robert

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

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Blair, Anthony

  Cohen, Harry

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Coleman, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Conlan, Bernard

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

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

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  1198

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Marek, Dr John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Crowther, Stan

  Martin, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Michie, William

  Dixon, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dormand, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Nellist, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  O'Brien, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Park, George

  Fisher, Mark

  Parry, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Patchett, Terry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Forrester, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Pike, Peter

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Prescott, John

  George, Bruce

  Radice, Giles

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Randall, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Raynsford, Nick

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Redmond, Martin

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rooker, J. W.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Home Robertson, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hume, John

  Stott, Roger

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Straw, Jack

  John, Brynmor

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tinn, James

  Lamond, James

  Wallace, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Wareing, Robert

  Litherland, Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Welsh, Michael

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  White, James

  Loyden, Edward

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McCartney, Hugh

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Winnick, David

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclennan, Robert

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  McNamara, Kevin

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Ryder.]
  Committee tomorrow.

British Railways (Stansted) Bill (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
7.12 pm
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has now completed most of its stages in the House of Commons and it has had a very long and interrupted career. The purposes of the Bill are very simple. It is intended to anticipate the opening of the new airport at Stansted and to provide passengers with a rail link that will meet their requirements.
Much of the discussion about the Bill during its stages on the Floor of the House has revolved around the relationship between what is happening at Stansted and what is happening at Manchester.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I hesitate to interrupt a persuasive speech. As the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) appreciates, hon. Members must take the opportunities available to them to argue the interests of their communities. The hon. Gentleman knows why I and my hon. Friends are here in this debate. I hope he will agree that our concern for equality of treatment is wholly legitimate and that he will put that point to the Minister. I hope equally that the Minister will take the point when he replies.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all his representations will be heard, as always, with great care. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in 1984, I moved the Second Reading of the Bill to provide precisely the same powers for Manchester as are being sought now for Stansted. Hon. Members will know that these Bills do not make clear any intention to build anything. In such Bills, the promoter seeks to have powers available should such a building he required. I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of my competence to answer on behalf of the British Railways Board or the Government. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that later. Manchester has these powers and has had them for more than two years.
Another of the problems that surrounds the Bill is the fact that, while Stansted is still in the planning stage, some people are concerned about its effect on other commuter rail links. 1 want to remind the House about the powers that we are seeking in the Bill.
Clause 5 deals with Work No. 1. That is the construction of a new railway of about 6,000m in length which will constitute a spur from the London-Cambridge railway. Work No. 2 is a railway of some 770 m in length which will comprise a connection bwtween Work No. 1 and the London-Cambridge line. The other work set out in clause 5 is completely dependent upon those two major works.
I hope that I can assure hon. Members that when the building is completed and the spur line is added to the main line to the airport, far from making services worse, the work should substantially improve them.
I want to consider the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. On Second Reading, I said
1200
that while it was proper for hon. Members to raise constituency concerns in any debate in connection with British Rail Bills—and you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, always allowed these debates to run very wide because a:11 British Rail matters may be discussed—it would be a matter of counting apples with pears if we were to delay the Stansted rail link simply because final decisions had not been taken about Manchester. It will not be in anyone's interests to block the British Railways (Stansted) Bill and to prevent its passage. That would only mean that British Rail will be unable to meet its obligations when the, airport is finally approved. Indeed, that may endanger the jobs of those involved in the construction.
I hope that the House will grant the Bill a Third Reading, recognising, as I said at the beginning, that it has been thoroughly scrutinised. There are obviously further stages in which it will be further considered, but I hope tonight that the House will feel that the Bill can move to its next stage and that it will be granted a Third Reading.
7.18 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I will be brief. The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has made the point about Stansted. The Opposition have always been anxious that the Stansted project should come to fruition because the project will create jobs during the construction of the link as well as on the railways once the link is completed.
The House will understand why my hon. Friends and I have believed that it was worthwhile and necessary to delay the progress of this Bill in view of the connection that we drew between the Stansted rail link and the Manchester rail link. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has said, we feel that there has not always been comparable treatment between those two rail links. That debate has gone on for some time and is well understood.
If the Minister can assure the House that within the Department of Transport the progress of the proposals put forward by the authorities in Manchester for the Manchester link will be dealt with us as speedily and efficiency as was, and will be the case, for Stansted. my hon. Friends and I will be happy to support the Third Reading of the Bill tonight.
7.19 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: The Bill should receive its Third Reading so that this matter can progress. I know of no sizeable body of opinion in my constituency that is concerned about the precise mechanics of the proposed new spur line. I imagine that those matters have been dealt with under the scrutiny to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred. There is an overall benefit to be gained by Stansted airport, in its expanded form, being equipped with an efficient rail link, as this will have benefits in helping to alleviate pressure on roads and on possible urbanisation of the area.
However, I have one point to make. There is a fear, which has been underlined by recent experience on the railways, that it is difficult to be confident that the demand on commuter services, plus the demand for airport services, can be accommodated safely and adequately to provide a high standard all round. British Rail has assured me that there will not be a practical problem in that respect. Should pressures build up over the next four years

1201
that would throw doubt on that assumption, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would be sympathetic to any request from British Rail for further alleviation of the situation.
My remaining concern is that, in providing a good service to the airport, nothing should happen to undermine the service to my constituents who daily come to the capital, regardless of the airport, and whose quality of service has been questionable over many years. That apart, I welcome the Third Reading.
7.21 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful if I intervene to give the House the Government's view of the Bill. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. My Department has no outstanding points on the Bill.
As I have said before, the White Paper on airports made it clear that we would be pleased to approve a rail link to Stansted airport if there was a commercial case for it. British Rail has proved that there is, and we have given approval. British Rail now needs powers to build the link. Work will need to begin by the end of the year, so that it will be ready by 1991, when the new terminal at Stansted is due to come into operation.
The Government's position on Manchester is clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are anxious to meet the other interested parties as soon as they have worked out proposals for our consideration. Before that, there is little point in a meeting. Naturally, I cannot give a prior commitment to the link until we have had an opportunity to study the case supported by a grant application.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), on behalf not only of himself but of other hon. Members with like
1202
interests in the Manchester area, asked me whether the proposals, when received by the Department, would be dealt with expeditiously. I can give him that assurance, and it is backed up by the fact that I am told that I have the record for the fastest yet handling of British Rail investment applications through the Department. While I cannot undertake exactly how long this will take, I can give him the assurance that the matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as I reasonably and possibly can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) asked about services to his constituents. I have been to Essex today to look at the Chelmsford station and some of the connecting stations. We all have much sympathy both with the commuters held up by the problems with the fall of overhead cables, which British Rail is handling today, and with British Rail staff who are doing their best, working much of the night to deal with the problem.
I assure my hon. Friend that, should British Rail find that there are capacity problems and come to us with alternative proposals, we shall consider them carefully. British Rail has already assessed that there may be the possibility of switching the London terminus for Stansted to a London station other than Liverpool street, should the build up of traffic be such as to bring about the problem that my hon. Friend fears. I hope that on that basis he may feel some reassurance.
It is clear that, if the Bill did not proceed, that would have a substantial effect on the rate of traffic in my hon. Friend's constituency, which he would not find attractive. I hope that all I have been able to say has reassured both my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and those hon. Members representing Manchester and that they will feel able to take the Government's view and not object to the proceeding of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Education (Northern Ireland)
7.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
The main purpose of the draft order is to implement the Government's decision to transfer responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Education. A consultative document was widely distributed to statutory and voluntary bodies in both the health and personal social services and education sectors, to trade unions, political parties, parents' groups and individuals who had shown an interest in the subject. The document was also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for consideration.
Having given careful consideration to the responses, the Government agreed with the substantial body of opinion, including that of the Assembly, that mentally handicapped children should be given the statutory right to education. The Government concluded that the most appropriate way of meeting the needs of these children was to bring them into the statutory education system. It is intended that the transfer of the responsibility will take effect from 1 April this year.
The most immediate and significant change will be that from that date mentally handicapped children will no longer be determined to be unsuitable for education in schools. Instead, they will be treated as pupils with special educational needs and will be entitled to receive full-time education. This order will bring the law on special education in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The provision of health and social services for the mentally handicapped. will remain the responsibility of the DHSS and the health and social services boards.
I shall now deal with the provision of the draft order concerning the transfer of responsibility. Article 3 provides for the repeal of those parts of the Education and Library (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the principal order, which requires the education and library boards to determine mentally handicapped children as unsuitable for education at school, and for the repeal of the remaining parts of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961, under which care and supervision is presently provided for such children. It also makes consequential amendments to article 133(2) of the 1980 order, which excludes mentally handicapped children from the powers and duties imposed by that order.
Schedule 1 contains transitional provisions relating to the children and the transfer of staff and property. Paragraph 2 provides that children who hitherto have been determined as unsuitable for education at school will be regarded as having special educational needs which require education and library boards to determine the special educational provisions that should be made for them. It was originally proposed that boards should be allowed a period of 12 months from the date of the transfer to prepare the formal record of special educational provisions to be made to meet the needs of each of these children. However, during the consultation period on the draft order, representations were received that this would
1204
not allow sufficient time for boards to carry out this taslk for all the children concerned. The Government accept that the transfer of responsibility will mean an increased workload for the special education departments of boards, so I have decided to respond to the representations by increasing the period from 12 months to two years.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides for the transfer of staff from the employment of health and social services boards to the employment of education and library boards. The staff involved are those employed wholly or mainly with mentally handicapped children and includes teachers, child care and ancillary staff. It is the Government's intention that they shall be transferred on terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those enjoyed prior to the transfer and, in the unlikely event that someone should be worse off after the transfer, that compensation shall be paid. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that where Government impose such a change on staff they should be adequately protected.
The transfer of property, including school buildings and equipment, to the ownership of education and library boards is provided for in paragraph 4. Not all of the school buildings will be transferring permanently because some are on hospital sites and others are not considered suitable for long-term use as schools. In those cases, the premises will continue to be used as a school until alternative accommodation is provided by education and library boards.
Paragraph 5 of the schedule will enable the existing special care schools to be recognised as controlled special schools with effect from 1 April, without education and library boards having to follow all the procedures required for school development proposals by article 14 of the principal order.
The Government have always recognised that the education service would require additional finance to take on that responsibility. I have already made some £1·7 million available to the education and library boards in the current financial year. That has enabled them to place an order for 50 new purpose-built buses, to provide temporary classrooms, to do other minor works immediately at some schools to facilitate the separation of children and adults and to reduce class size and it has enabled them to place orders for additional equipment and teaching resources to enhance the provisions available to the schools.
For 1987–88, provision has been made for additional recurrent funds of almost £3 million. That will enable the schools to employ additional teaching and other staff and for home tuition to be provided for children who are unable to attend school. It has also enabled the education and library boards to employ additional administrative and professional staff and generally to enhance the provisions made for the children.
Provision has also been made for a new capital programme that will allow the education and library boards to make a start on replacing or improving the existing buildings. A total of £2 million has been provided for 1987–88.
The remaining provisions of the order make a number of miscellaneous changes to the 1986 order which do not arise from the transfer of responsibility for mentally handicapped children but which are also important. Article 4 is concerned with proposals for the establishment, amalgamation or closure of schools and places a

1205
duty on the education and library boards or other body making the proposals to implement it if it has been approved by my Department. The approved proposal can be modified subsequently by my Department in response to a request by the board or other body.
Article 5 gives my Department specific power to make regulations regarding the operation of schools and sets out the provisions that may be included in such regulations.
Article 6 gives my Department powers to prescribe in regulations requirements which call for certain arrangements regarding the pupils for whom provision is to be made in special schools to be subject to my Department's approval. There is similar provision in the Education Act 1981.
The purpose of article 7 is to require that school registers should contain information about all the pupils in a school, not just those of compulsory school age as at present.
Article 8 enables my Department to make regulations concerning the eligibility of persons to be employed as teachers. It also re-enacts the existing provision relating to the making of regulations about the terms and conditions of the employment of teachers.
Article 9 gives my Department similar powers in regard to making regulations about the employment of non-teaching staff.
Article 10 removes the existing requirement that education and library boards should give caretakers and groundsmen six month's notice to recover possession of their residences on termination of their employment.
Article 11 enables an education and library board to permit other persons to use the board's spare computer capacity on agreed terms. That provision follows similar provision to district councils in Northern Ireland under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
Article 12 removes the requirement on my Department to produce an annual report. My Department will, of course, continue to produce occasional reports on issues of particular interest and to publish its regular statistical bulletins.
The purpose of Article 13 is to remove the requirement that my Department should make regulations governing its powers to pay grants to certain voluntary schools in respect of the provision of milk, meals and other refreshments. The grants will continue to be paid using the existing powers relating to the payment of grant to voluntary schools rather than the present regulations.
Article 14 replaces
"managers of a grant-aided school"
with, "Boards of Governors" in the provision in the principal order relating to the production of documents in evidence in legal proceedings.
Article 15 will enable an education and library board to seek a direction from the Department where the naming of a school selected by a parent in a school attendance order would be in conflict with the board's policy.
Article 16 and schedule 2 repeal provisions that are spent or have become unnecessary with the passage of time or because of other provisons in the order.
Articles 4 to 9 and 12 are in line with corresponding education law in Britain.
1206
If hon. Members wish to raise any points, I shall do my best to reply at the end of the debate, subject to the leave of the House.
The order is concerned with a major step forward in the provision of education for a small but very important group of our children, and I commend it to the House.
7.36 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I intervene in the debate principally for one reason, namely, the acute anxiety that is evidently still felt in Northern Ireland among members of the staff who will be transferred under these arrangements to the employment of the education and library boards. In that light, no doubt like other hon. Members, I have studied carefully the provisions of schedule 1 and I hope that it will be possible before the end of the debate for the Minister to give a form of assurance that will go far to removing the anxieties currently felt by those affected.
The provisions for the transfer of staff in paragraph 3 of the schedule are of two sorts. First, there is the scheme governing the transfer and then there are the regulations governing the compensation, where compensation falls to be paid. Over the regulations there will be some, although limited, future control because, of course, the reference in paragraph 9 to "negative resolution", as the aficionados of this type of legislation are well aware, does not mean what it says. Nevertheless, there is a convention whereby the Government, upon the request of the Opposition, provide time for the consideration of regulations that would otherwise be subject to what we call a prayer. Therefore, we are not entirely saying goodbye to the provisions that will be made for compensation. However, unless I am mistaken, there is no such future look that we are going to get at the provisions governed by the making of a scheme. That is why it is appropriate that the Minister should be able, on this occasion, before we take leave of the order, to give some assurances.
Paragraph 3 (3) states:
"as long as a transferred officer is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged immediately before 1st April 1987, the scale of his . remuneration; and the other terms and conditions of his employment"
must be
"taken as a whole not less favourable".
That seems to be all right so far as it goes. However, many of those employed under the health boards in the education— it is education— of the mentally handicapped have been looking forward to a career in that service and they have been trained to a standard fully equal to that of their colleagues in the ordinary education service though for a specialised purpose. It is far from clear from what has been said by the Minister so far or from a study of the terms of the schedule that those persons may not find themselves at a disadvantage in future competitive appointments compared with those who have come up through the odinary channels of the education service.
The Minister ought to be prepared to give to the House this evening some reassurance that the career prospects— I apologise if I am not making the proposition in precisely and exactly the correct terms, but that is a general term and I hope it is well understood— of those who will be transferred will not be less favourable than they had reason to expect under their former conditions of employment. That is a request which I hope the Minister

1207
will be able to discharge because I have satisfied myself that the anxiety which is felt is widespread and very real and is something with which we ought to deal.
That having been said, I will not pass up the opportunity of expressing my anxiety about the act of policy which, through this order, is being transferred or imitated or duplicated in Northern Ireland from Great Britain.
It was an attractive, indeed a noble, proposition that the education of the mentally handicapped was education and a real part of education and should be so regarded, and that those who suffered from mental handicap should be educated within the same educational service as their more fortunate contemporaries. That was a very natural and attractive proposition, and legislation has been framed now on both sides of the Irish sea to give effect to it. As so often, it is our experience in Northern Ireland, since we come late to ditto-ing legislation on the mainland, that when people are already beginning to have doubts as to the soundness of what has happened on the mainland, we in Northern Ireland are still in the full flush of enthusiasm. The classic example of that was that we caught up with the bright new idea of new towns just when new towns were going out of fashion in Great Britain, with disastrous consequences in a place called Craigavon; but I will not enter into that.
Mr. John Hume: We told them so in advance.
Mr. Powell: Yes, they were told so. Very often these mistakes are made by Governments which have been told so; but the power of fashion in its heyday is almost irresistible. There is an element of fashion in play in what we are doing here. We must not be surprised if in years to come those parents and others who have welcomed the prospect of mentally handicapped children having their special educational needs dealt with within the education service experience a degree of disappointment.
There are two problems. The first is that those with special educational needs—and I noted carefully what the Minister said about the need for additional resources— are going to be competing for attention with their more fortunate contemporaries. This is in the nature of things. even in large centres of population, and will be especially so in the rural areas where, of necessity, educational establishments are fairly small. We are placing those with special educational needs in a setting in which they will be competing for attention and for resources with those who do not have special educational needs. It is far from certain that in that competition they will come off best or gain the valuation of their special needs that they might have looked forward to under the old regime.
The second problem is that mental handicap brings with it very special requirements on the part of those who teach and train and calls for special endowments on the part of the persons who are selected—it is usually self-selected—for that task. I remember from 25 years ago as Minister of Health, when the Ministry of Health was responsible here in England and Wales, how immensely struck I was by the capabilities, hopefulness and— the word is unavoidable—dedication of those in the Health Service who were dealing with the mentally handicapped.
One fears that with the merging of the provision for those special needs into the general education service something of that special enthusiasm and dedication will inevitably he lost. This is not a moment perhaps for these
1208
forebodings to cloud our minds but I could not leave the opportunity without expressing them. I know that I am not alone in entertaining them, amongst those who have dedicated themselves especially to interest in the mentally handicapped. In saying that I have in mind especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) who, as is generally known in Northern Ireland, long before he became a politician and a Member of Parliament was closely involved in the care of the mentally handicapped in his own area.
There are two parts to this order which have no necessary connection with one another. I have been dealing with that part which concerns the mentally handicapped; but the greater part of the order, in terms of volume if not necessarily of importance, is concerned with certain amendments to the principal legislation, the order of 1986. Over these the Minister glided with a well-tuned brief, indicating the contents of each of the paragraphs and articles as he touched upon them. One or two of them deserve to be looked at more carefully.
In doing so one is constantly reminded — and I apologise if I return to a theme which is perhaps not entirely unfamiliar to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you seem to be the one unchanging feature in the scene of Northern Ireland legislation by Order in Council — that if these amendments were being made by a Bill, as they would be in Great Britain. we would be attending to what is happening in a very different way and very much more specifically and jealously than we are able to do in the ambit of this debate on the order.
I was struck by article 5, the regulations which can be made "As to carrying on of grant-aided schools". My eye fell upon paragraph 17A(2)(d) dealing with regulations
"with respect to the curriculum and time-table to be followed in such schools";
and
"enabling the Department to prohibit the use in such schools of any book or other teaching material of which the Department does not approve"
It may be that coming events are casting their shadow before, but there are those of us who are disturbed at what we hear as to the intention in England and Wales that the Secretary of State for Education and a Government Department shall lay down in precise detail the contents of the curriculum and the timetable of the schools— what has commonly, though not necessarily accurately, come to be regarded as the French method.
If that is what lies behind these two subparagraphs of I 7A(2), then I have to say that I fear the worst from this new development in education policy. I really do fear the consequences of an education department taking upon itself by regulation the laying down of the curriculum and the timetable for all the schools under its control. While I can see the grounds on which a Department might want to prohibit the use in schools of a particular book— indeed I have seen books of which one could wish to see the use prohibited— I am far from sure that a prohibition issuing from a central Department is the right way to achieve that desirable end. I note with dismay—and perhaps some of these words will reach the Province to which this order applies— that provision is being made under this article for regulations which will enable the Department to lay down curriculum and timetable arid to prohibit books or teaching material in the grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that.

1209
I pass over article 8
"Regulations as to employment of teachers"
with one observation only because I think that there is either an error or a misprint. It appears in new article 70(2)(e)
"prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of teachers on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and on educational grounds."
My submission—perhaps it is not too late for a verbal correction, if that is all that is necessary—is that the word "and" in the last phrase should be "or". Otherwise it will only be possible to prohibit or restrict the employment of teachers if medical grounds, misconduct and educational grounds are all available in the same case. No doubt the Minister will have that looked at.
I come to something rather more disturbing in article 10. There has not yet been an opportunity for a representative of Her Majesty's Opposition to intervene in the debate, but I cannot think that they will have acquiesced with equanimity in the removal of the safeguard of a six months' notice-to-quit from caretakers, groundsmen and so on, while retaining that protection for teachers—an instance of class discrimination which I should not have thought would attract the support of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench. There are no Opposition occupants of any other Benches at the moment.
It may be awkward to have a caretaker or a groundsman working out the six months' notice if one wants to get hold of the premises in which he is residing, but I cannot see that the same difficulty does not largely apply to a teacher who is occupying a similar residence. Nor does it seem to me that it will be easier for a groundsman or a caretaker to find other accommodation than it would be for a teacher to find other accommodation. Is the introduction of that discrimination really justified? And is it worth withdrawing this protection from caretakers, groundsmen and so on for the convenience of securing a summary eviction?
I say that with the more warmth because I am at the moment concerned with the fate of a lady who was the warden of a youth hostel in my constituency who, for health reasons, had to relinquish that post and has still not been satisfactorily rehoused after a lapse of many months. We are talking about real personal problems as we slide over the amending articles of the order. So to that article, too, I hope that the Minister will give attention when he replies.
7.52 pm
Mr. John Hume: I welcome the order because it is, in the words of the Minister, a major step forward, even though it is long overdue. When I first entered public life in Northern Ireland in the old Stormont Parliament in 1969 one of the first issues that I raised was the resentment felt that the mentally handicapped were being educated not within the education system but within the Health Service, which placed upon them a sort of official stigma that they were uneducable. I am glad that, 18 years later, it has finally been accepted that they should be entitled to be educated in exactly the same system as all other children and therefore be subject to the same advantages, such as books and transport, which they have been denied up to now.
1210
In addition, I rise to echo what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said about the anxiety that exists among the staff of the special care service in Northern Ireland that some of them may lose out because of the change. I have spoken privately to the Minister about this and I hope that he will clarify the order to ensure that no members of the special care service should lose from the changeover. I am referring specifically to those who were trained in Muckamore. It has been suggested that those who were would in some way lose recognition of years of service because of the changeover. That would be a complete injustice. If that is so, it must be an oversight, not deliberate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that.
That is all that I have to say on the subject, other than to reiterate my welcome for the order, which I believe will receive a widespread welcome within Northern Ireland.
7.54 pm
Mr. David Alton: I want to echo some of the remarks that have already been made tonight. Not long after the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was fighting his battle in Stormont, I found myself as a member of the Liverpool city council's education committee serving on the sub-committee which dealt with children with special needs. During the years that I served on that sub-committee I saw the need to integrate the education service with the special provision for those with handicaps and special needs. Indeed, when I went on to teach for six years, I worked with children with handicaps and maladjustments.
The analogy made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) between the abominations of new towns and overspill areas and the imposition of what were purely fashionable ideas was a fair point to make, but I suspect that rather more thought has gone into this. The Education Act 1981 has proved to be successful in Great Britain, and some of the misgivings which he has suggested tonight are probably without foundation. However, I support what he said about the concern that the order gives about transitional arrangements. It would be strange if there were not such concerns at a time when change is taking place.
I also strongly support what the right hon. Gentleman said about the imposition of a curriculum by any centralised authority, whether it be by Government or by local education authorities. There is much to be said for schools having a fair amount of control over what goes on in their establishments. That is why it is important that the governing bodies of schools and parents should be better involved and the 1985 legislation went some way to ensuring that in Great Britain.
Will the Minister answer some specific questions? To what extent is the order merely a book transition, moving responsibility from the health authorities to the education authorities? How many more children will be integrated into normal state schools rather than being educated in separate institutions? Will the Minister give the House some figures tonight for the number of children currently in special education in Northern Ireland? Does he think that the £3 million which is being made available will be enough, and will the time between now and 1 April be sufficient for the order to be implemented successfully?
Article 5 has already been referred to. According to the noble Lord Lyell, who spoke for the Government in the other place, those prohibition powers have never been

1211
invoked in the past 10 years. If that is the case, should not the Government be considering whether they might be removed altogether?
Finally, I want simply to make an observation. Integration is a word which comes up when talking about children with special needs. It is significant that handicapped and maladjusted children, Catholic and Protestant, are usually educated together. Surely we can learn something from that. If special education can be integrated, surely there is much to be said for moving away from the old sectarian system of education in Northern Ireland. If normal schools can learn from the education of people with special needs, perhaps the sectarian barriers can be broken down.
7.59 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I welcome to our debates on Northern Ireland the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I think that it is the first time that he has addressed the House as the spokesman for the alliance on Northern Ireland matters. He will find that we have graceful debates at a high level, and that those who participate in them, even though their numbers might be few, have a great deal of experience. I congratulate the Minister on the felicitous way in which he presented the order.
We welcome the order. As the Minister said, it removes the duty of an education and library board to determine whether children are unsuitable for education at school. The second thrust of the order will remove the powers of a health and social services board to provide supervision and training for children requiring special care. The upshot of this is that the responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland is removed from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of Education. That means that mentally handicapped children will no longer be considered unsuitable for school and that the law on special education in Northern Ireland will be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke about integration. We wholeheartedly support the principles of integration. I noted with interest the points made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). He said that there were now doubts on the mainland about the fact that in the past there had been imitation and duplication of legislation that affected Northern Ireland after it had affected the mainland. It has taken a long time to establish the principles of integration in education on the mainland. Up to now the resources and the political will to put the principles effectively into practice have not existed. I may come hack to that point later.
All the evidence available to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) in his capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Education suggests that the aims of education for children and young people with disabilities and with significant difficulties are the same as those for all children and young people. In a recent speech to the annual conference of the National Bureau for Handicapped Students my hon. Friend said:
"It follows that handicapped and non handicapped pupils ought to be educated in a common setting as far as is possible. The integration of the whole community is, I believe, not only in the best interests of the handicapped. It is also in the best interests of all."
It has taken us a long time properly to establish the principles of integration. I can well understand the
1212
difficulties in attitudes, in the complexities of bureaucracy and of events not keeping pace with the times. On the mainland at least local education authorities have been rate-capped, penalised and, some might say, victimised and have not been able to relate the special needs of handicapped and disabled children to the ability of the education authorities to meet them. I hope that that point is not too semantic or lost on the House, but it is true nevertheless.
In the case of Northern Ireland, I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that an additional £3 million in resources will be made available over a three-year period and that there is to be a capital programme to enable education and library boards to make a start on replacing or improving existing buildings. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke about the £3 million and put a question to the Minister about it.
The question is often asked, "How long is a piece of string?" The questions that we ask are: "Is the £3 million of additional resources, however welcome, enough? On what criteria has the figure been reached? Has it been reached on the basis of need and the requirement of mentally handicapped children? Will the capital programme be sufficient?" Perhaps only people with specialist knowledge of the subject will be able to answer those questions, but if the Minister has the answers no doubt he will wish to share them with the House. We all welcome capital programmes in Northern Ireland, and none is more welcome than a programme which deals with the needs of mentally handicapped children who require patience, time, skill and attention to make up for their disabilities—if anything can make up for them.
Integration into normal schools does not arise from the order. Initially, mentally handicapped children covered by the order will continue to be educated in separate schools. As I understand it, the principle of integration applies to children with special education needs being educated in ordinary schools for which resources have always been available. Integration in Northern Ireland to the tune of about 40 per cent. was achieved even before the principle was written into law. Some distinction appears to be drawn between children with special educational needs and those who are mentally handicapped, although in practice they may amount to the same thing. The Warnock report represented a substantial shift in attitudes towards special education on the mainland. Perhaps the committee's most important conclusion was that up to one in five children would require some form of special education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said, the observation that handicap was not confined to a small minority but was a much wider phenomenon gave an additional and decisive impetus to the movement towards integration.
The Minister told the House that the order corresponds to the provisions on the mainland. The Education Act 1981 was the legislative expression of that movement towards integration. Article 6 of the order is a direct take from section 12 of the Education Act 1981 which deals with regulations about special schools. The order brings the legislation about the education of mentally handicapped children into line with that on the mainland.
My next point will be familiar to the House and to those who follow our debates— including the participants. Some Opposition Members believe in an Ireland united by consent and democracy and by peaceful means. We often make the point that, until that happens, it is as well for

1213
Northern Ireland to have, as far as possible and within the context of its own regional distinctiveness, legislation equivalent to that on the mainland. For that reason we welcome the order.
A wide spectrum of statutory and voluntary bodies in health and personal social services and education as well as trade unions, political parties, parents groups and individuals were consulted about the terms of the order. The order might be negatived, but it cannot be altered. However, as a result of representations, a change has been made in schedule 1, paragraph 2(3). The House will welcome even that slight change.
We regret that, whilst the order was at one time referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly, that Assembly no longer exists. That is not the fault of the Government, still less the fault of the Opposition, but it is a matter for regret that in Northern Ireland there is no elected body able to make its own contribution to local democracy. The Opposition are committed to looking at all structures of local government, and when we return to office we will take account of the views of all those who wish to make submissions. We will look at devolution, administrative or otherwise, so that in one constitutional form or another the people of Northern Ireland might have restored to them a measure of local democracy and a sense of self government of which they are now deprived.
We are committed to altering the procedures of the House so that orders of the sort that we are now debating would become Bills or would certainly be subjected to study in Committee and altered, and the views of elected representatives taken into account.
I thank the right hon. Member for South Down for his reference to article 10 which deals with recovery of possession of residences provided for caretakers and groundsmen. The National Union of Public Employees will welcome his reference to that and to the fact that six months' notice could be given to the occupants. That is a matter of some concern to us. I surmise that there may be differences in the role of a caretaker as opposed to that of a teacher. Nevertheless, we look upon this matter with some anxiety. We shall look to the Minister for some reassurance on that point and on the security of tenure of caretakers, groundsmen and so on.
I trust that the House has held its breath sufficiently long to listen to my short speech on the order. We commend it to the House. With the serried ranks behind me, I assure the Minister that we shall not oppose it.
8.9 pm
Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for the welcome that they have given to the order. Although the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) expressed some reservations about it, I was encouraged that he did not voice any opposition to it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, although I have no responsibility for Craigavon—I make no comment about it—I am proud to represent a successful new town in Peterborough. The Government's legislation in that regard has not been negative.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the legitimate and important question whether the commitment that I have given the House in respect of the terms of transfer for
1214
individual people—that there should be no disadvantage to them—could be extended to apply to career prospects. Although he did not define those words, we understand what he meant. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as far as it is possible for me to do so, that the career prospects of transferred staff will not be adversely affected.—[Interruption.] They will not be financially disadvantaged at all. That is my commitment. If, for any reason, they should find themselves disadvantaged, compensation will be paid. As I said, it is right that, if the Government require a change, they should see that people are adequately protected.
The right hon. Member for South Down referred to the delay in introducing this order with respect to what has happened in Britain. I remind him that this is the third occasion when a consultation procedure has been embarked upon. It was first raised in the Province in 1971. The majority of those who responded at the time decided that the balance of advantage lay in the service remaining within the health sector. It was raised again and considered in 1976 as part of a consultative exercise on services for the mentally handicapped. At that time, also a minority of respondents took the view that special care schools should be transferred to the education sector, and the Government accepted the view of the majority that the status quo should be maintained.
Although the right hon. Member for South Down was right to say that there has been a delay, it has not been because of any dilatory approach by the Government to this matter in the Province, but it has reflected the majority view of those who not only are involved but have expertise in these matters within the Province. That is the case with the order. I remind the House that there was a large measure of agreement in the consultation process with respect to the order that the time was appropriate for a change to be made from the health sector to the education sector.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the competition for resources within the education budget. As far as possible, the Government are committed to seeing that the resources necessary to maintain, protect and develop this service in the education sector will be provided and will continue to be provided. It is fair to point out that in the health sector there was competition for resources—by definition almost, that is the case—but there is no attempt in this change to weaken the claim on resources for this important sector.
I join in the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the dedication of the staff in this area. I assure him and the House that nothing in this move is intended in any way to make life more difficult for the dedicated professionals involved.
The right hon. Gentleman moved on to three other specific matters. He addressed article 5. Article 5 does not change the existing position in which responsibility for the curricular of schools rests with school managers and, particularly, principals. He was right to say that the article provides an enabling power for regulations which, if necessary, may lay down broad curricular principles within which schools might operate. I do not have any plans at present to make such changes. In any event, if the Government were to contemplate any such change, I assure him and the House that there would be wide consultation before any such changes were introduced.

1215
The right hon. Gentleman referred to article 8. Frankly, the advice that I have received is that we shall have to take legal advice on whether it should be "and" or "or", but the intention is as he defined it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to article 10 and caretakers. Teachers occupy education and library board residences as tenants of the board, and so are entitled to receive notice to quit. Caretakers are given possession of residences by virtue of their employment and are not entitled to receive notices to quit on termination of such employment. An important part of a resident caretaker's responsibility is that he should be resident. He should be available on site, day and night, to secure school premises. When his employment ends, the education and library boards require possession of the residence for his successor and should not have to wait six months to recover it. I am advised that the legal status of caretakers is the same in England and in Northern Ireland, but in England it derives from the common law.
The hon. Member for Foyle referred to those who, some time ago, transferred to the education system. I mentioned the fact that it was some time ago because it is not relevant to the order. Anybody affected by the order will have the protections that I have already spelt out to the House.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill asked three questions, one of which was asked again in a slightly different form by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. I am advised that about 1,400 children are involved.
Mr. Hume: If a member of the special care service who was trained in Muckamore and is at present in a scale 2 post is transferred to another post, will he retain his grade 2 level? From representations made to me, I understand that, if such people are transferred within the system at present, they are eligible only for scale 1 posts, and suffer as a result.
Dr. Mawhinney: My understanding is that, some time ago, some teachers chose to move from the health service into the education service. They understood the arrangements. This order does not apply to them. Anyone who is required to move under the order will not find himself at a disadvantage as a consequence.
I understand that about 1,400 children are involved in this move.
As to the provisions and prohibitions in article 5, it is a considerable time since the existing power was last used. It has certainly not been exercised in the last 10 years. That
1216
is not to say that that power should not be available to the Department. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle is pleased to hear that this power is not frequently resorted to by the Department.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If these powers are already in existence, will the Minister explain why they have to be written into the principal order by this order?
Dr. Mawhinney: Because it is felt that it is appropriate that these matters should be brought together to clarify the Department's responsibility for these matters.
The third question that the hon. Member for Foyle asked me was echoed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He asked whether there will be sufficient money. I stress that the Government are making available additional resources. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough will be pleased to note that the £3 million to which I referred is not for three years; it is for the first year. That expenditure will continue, which should encourage the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
As for the £2 million of captial expenditure, a great deal of planning will be required before we know exactly what will be needed for the capital programme. The £2 million will enable the boards to make a start, but it is not suggested that it will be sufficient to meet the capital provision that will be required as a consequence of this order.
I think that I have answered all the questions that have been asked. I am grateful for the welcome that this important order has received. It covers a small but very significant and important group of children in the Province, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  AGRICULTURAL. MARKETING
  Ordered,
  That the draft Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955, as amended, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  Question agreed to.

Tailoring (Planning Regulations)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
8.12 pm
Mr. John Wheeler: At this unusually early hour, I am delighted to speak on the Adjournment of the House and to have the opportunity to raise the work of the Savile Row tailors, as represented by the Federation of Merchant Tailors. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is in his place tonight for, as his constituents know, he is a most diligent and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament who takes the greatest possible interest in the well-being of the Savile Row tailors. However, by virtue of the high office that he holds under the Crown he is unable personally to represent their interests in this debate. In effect, I am speaking for him as well as for those of my constituents who are also employed in this trade.
It would not be appropriate for me to go further, Mr. Speaker, without making reference to your special interests in the tailors for, as the whole House knows, you have proud links with this most honourable of trades. It is a particular privilege that you should be present tonight to hear the debate.
I am particularly glad to be speaking tonight about the Savile Row tailors because the centenary of the Master Tailors' Benevolent Association was celebrated last night. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you were one of the guests of honour. The Federation of Merchant Tailors will itself celebrate its centenary in 1988.
What concerns the Savile Row tailors at present and has a direct bearing on a viable future for the trade is the proposal to amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order.
To put this issue into context, I shall describe the history of the bespoke tailoring industry in this country, particularly in the city of Westminster. Given the nature of our hostile climate, tailoring has been a feature of our country for some time. We all like to wear clothes. A craft trade was organised to represent the tailors' interests in the middle ages when guilds were formed, as was the custom several centuries ago. Effectively, it was the French Revolution that gave the British tailor the opportunity to lead men's fashion, and it was then that wool was introduced into quality clothing.
Early in the 19th century, bespoke tailors were to be found in the eastern part of Mayfair, which lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South. By the middle of the 19th century many of them were occupying premises in Savile Row. With the rise of the British empire, English tailoring and its influences were spread throughout the world—perhaps, one might say, with great advantage. One of the most lasting influences of the British empire is perhaps the gift of formal men's wear to cultures that previously were used to a type of clothing that is quite foreign to us.
Throughout this century, the United Kingdom has continued to lead in the development of formal men's wear. We have gradually seen the lounge suit become accepted business attire throughout the world. As a result. many overseas tailors have sought to perfect their craft among the tailors of Savile Row, but perhaps the most
1218
pleasing aspect has been the development of markets throughout the world for high-class British tailoring. This has developed in a most encouraging way so that today, of the approximately £27 million that the tailoring craft earns, over £15 million of it relates to exports. That is particularly relevant to this debate.
The Savile Row area became the world's centre for high-class men's tailoring. It is also the centre for design skills of good quality men's wear. That is well understood, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. The Federation of Merchant Tailors has represented its concerns to me. and it is those concerns that I am attempting to present to the House tonight.
However, there is more to say about the tailoring trade before I look at the order. The trade has developed in such a way that it now takes a leading role in training for the industry. It is centred particularly on Savile Row. A member of the federation chairs the training and research committee of the Clothing and Allied Products Industry Training Board, which serves and influences the London Institute and the London College of Fashion. It was the Federation of Merchant Tailors that led the campaign to retain the Clothing and Allied Products Industry training board when its future was in doubt, along with many other industrial training boards. It has saved that board, whose record is unrivalled in placing in full-time employment 95 per cent. of all the young people who have completed their training on the YTS course.
Throughout the years the federation has worked closely with the leading woollen merchants in the United Kingdom, aiding and advising them on the development of ranges of their world wide markets. Indeed, they would be the first to admit that the role of the tailors in this regard has made a major contribution to their own success.
Tonight's debate is essentially about the proposal to abolish the class 3 light industrial category and to combine it with offices in a new business class. This was foreshadowed in the Government document entitled "Lifting the Burden". It is a radical development. The Department of the Environment's proposal to modernise the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972 and to make these changes is significant, inasmuch as it would change the prospect of the rental values for properties in the Mayfair area, particularly in Savile Row. On 26 November the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning wrote to my noble Friend Lord Hanson, a successful capitalist who believes in the market of skills and enterprise. The Minister said:
"However I must emphasise that one of the Federation's chief concerns—the possible increase in rental levels for tailoring premises—is a factor which we cannot take into account. In our view, we must concentrate on the public interest in amenity and the use of land."
Public interest in amenity and the use of land is the kernal of this issue. The position that the tailors occupy in London and their craft provide employment for some 3,000 people who live and work in London and who contribute to the £27 million which the trade produces in the value of its products, but also to that vital £15 million a year which goes to exports.
If the majority of the light industrial and commercial property in Savile Row is to become one business class the tailors believe that it would rapidly turn into offices and hi-tech studios and be used for other activities. If the tailoring profession is to continue to serve the interests of

1219
Britain and contribute to world tailoring—Savile Row tailors are at the centre of that activity—a change in the use classes order will be quite devastating.
In the City of Westminster we have a mosaic of commercial activities which each relate to the other. Thus, people will stay in the hotels, visit the Oxford street retail sector, the fine art galleries, the auction houses, consult a doctor in Harley street or a consultant, consult distinguished lawyers and see a variety of commercial and professional people. The role of the bespoke tailor in Savile Row is integrated into these activities.
If, by changing the use-class order, The Savile Row tailoring community is forced away from the centre of London, that departure will damage the centre of London and the commercial activity of the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster chamber of commerce and industry, which is currently looking at this issue, is deeply concerned about this prospect. We cannot look upon these planning orders purely as matters to do with planning and the environment. We have to take into account the knock-on effect of change, and the effect of that change on the character of the commercial community, and in turn on those who work in it.
When my hon. Friend comes to reply to the debate, I would ask him to consider that particular aspect of the proposal. I am aware that his Department is still considering what should be done about "Lifting the Burden". I would like him to carry from the debate the keen message that many aspects of the change are affecting a large number of people. The tailoring trade has a long and honourable history, which is bound into the heart of London. Any change which affects their future is not necessarily a change for the best interests of the community, nor the best interests of the country. Whether the orders should be changed, and whether there should be a separate category to take account of the special needs of the occupants of premises that are used both as shops and for light industrial purposes, is an issue that I would strongly commend to my hon. Friend and his departmental colleagues as they decide about the future of the proposal.
8.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I am sure that all of us here, and you, Mr. Speaker, in particular, will agree that the tailors of Savile Row are fortunate to have had their interests so admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler). He has been supported by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who because of his high office could not put the case personally. It is good to have him here on the Treasury Bench.
May I first congratulate the Master Tailors Benevolent Association on its centenary and extend my best wishes to the Federation of Merchant Tailors when it reaches this landmark next year. The profession has rightly earned its reputation as being amongst the most highly regarded craft skills. Its image and prestige are justifiably recognised in every continent. The skill represented by the federation has been described as a special blend of art and science.
Before going any further, I think that it would be helpful if I briefly outlined the scope and purpose of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972. The planning Acts provide that "development"—for
1220
which planning permission is normally required—includes the making of any material change in the use of buildings or other land. But it has never been the aim of the planning system to control every small development or change of use. The general development order and use classes order together provide a wide range of freedoms which relieve the planning system of a great deal of minor administrative clutter, and ensure that there is a reasonable flexibility in the way that property is used or adopted. The use classes order does this by removing the need for a planning application if both the existing and proposed uses fall within the same use class. It is, therefore, an instrument of simplification that is as old as the planning Acts themselves. The classes have always been quite broad.
The order has not been substantially changed since 1948, and it now seems distinctly dated. The Department of the Environment therefore asked the property advisory group to look at it. We published the group's recommendations in December 1985 and at that time invited comments. In considering the use of buildings and land for commercial purposes the group took as its starting point the possibility of creating a single "employment" class. However, since that would have allowed the freedom to turn, for example, a corner shop into a shot blasting workshop or a glue factory, without prior approval, the group concluded that general arid industrial uses should be excluded. It concluded that shops should be excluded too, because of the special character of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic that they generate, and the importance of maintaining the functional character of shopping streets.
The group regarded the possibility of merging other commercial uses into a single class as posing a more challenging question. The fundamental issue which needs to be examined is the extent to which owners and users of commercial buildings should be free to decide for themselves what activities, or a combination of activities with much the same impact on the environment. could most profitably be carried on in their property from time to time, and to enable quick adaptation to the changing demands of commerce, without prior approval. We must also consider the extent to which local authorities should be able to influence the type of commercial activity carried out in their area.
A related problem is the development of new commercial uses which do not fit neatly into any use class. These are frequently referred to as "high technology" uses and embrace the manufacture of computer hardware arid software, research and development connected with computers, and the provision of consultancy and after-sales services, as well as various micro-engineering, biotechnology and pharmaceutical research, development and manufacture. These uses often involve the shifting of balance of activity between office, light industrial arid storage use which can cause confusion and difficulty when seen against the present structure of the order. There are many other uses in the same position: laboratories in general, studios, including film, television and sound recording studios, communications centres, some libraries and staff, educational and training establishments.
The property advisory group concluded that in the 1980s there was very little difference between the impact on the environment of most offices and light industry. Bat it also noted what it regarded as an unnecessary uncertainty for certain commercial firms in the need to

1221
apply for planning permission depending on whether the primary purpose was manufacture of some kind, or primarily clerical in nature. The group therefore recommended the creation of a new business class, embracing office and light industrial uses. In the light of our consultation, we agreed with the group's conclusion that there would be wide-ranging benefit to commerce and industry if this proposal were implemented. We therefore endorsed the concept of a single business use class in our consultation paper published last June.
We are still considering the final form of the new order and in doing so we are, of course, taking very careful account of the many comments that we received in response to the consultation paper. Copies of the responses to our consultation exercise have now been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met a deputation from the Federation of Merchant Tailors. My hon. Friend has lobbied equally persuasively on its behalf tonight. The Federation's main fear appears to be of the increased rents that it believes would result from the changes that we propose. But, in considering changes to planning legislation, we really must concentrate on issues which are relevant to the environment and amenity. It was never the purpose of the planning system to influence economic factors, such as rental levels, or to suppress the market by protecting the interests of one business from the activities of another.
The property advisory group considered the relationship between development control and property values. It took the view that the planning system is not and should not be concerned with fluctuation in the value of individual property. In its report, the group quite rightly stated that planning permission can neither be granted nor withheld on the ground that the decision in question will adversely or beneficially affect the value of any land, whether it is the land which is the subject of the application for permission, or other adjoining land, the value of which will be affected by the decision.
Of course, the way in which planning powers are exercised has sometimes had that effect of influencing economic factors such as rental levels. One example is the effect of the policies contained in the city of Westminster district plan. That plan aims to stem the loss of existing industrial floor space, in particular by maintaining certain specialised trade activities where these have links with central London. The protection of specific uses—by adopting policies which incorporate a presumption against
1222
allowing office development displacing specialised trades—has clearly benefited the west end tailoring industry. It has served to divert pressure for other forms of commercial development away from Savile Row and, as a result, rental values have remained relatively low. The federation suggests that rents paid on industrial premises in central London are a quarter of those paid for offices.
As I have said, we concluded that the effects on amenity and environment of a change of use from light industry to offices and vice versa are generally not so significant as to warrant local authority approval in each case. We therefore included in our consultation paper a proposal to amalgamate the light industrial and office classes. Will this lead to the quadrupling of rents which the federation fears? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I think not. For a start, many of the individual leases held by the tailors limit the use of the premises to manufacturing purposes. It may be anything up to 25 years before the terms of such leases come up for renegotiation. Only then will free market rents mean office rents. Even then, will the premises be of the sort which command the premium office rents that have been quoted? Again we think not. Rental levels for office uses in Savile Row currently range from £12 to £20 a square foot, not very much above workroom and showroom rentals. There is evidence of tailors coming into Savile Row being prepared to pay these prices today.
The tailors have been in Savile Row for much longer than the planning system. I have no doubt that this specialised industry based itself there in response to market forces. Responding to market forces requires flexibility and an ability to move with the times. There is a long tradition of this in Savile Row, or the tailoring industry would not continue to be so well represented in that area.
These are some of the relevant considerations. But I stress that we have not yet reached any final decision on the shape of the revised order. We shall certainly consider extremely carefully the points that my hon. Friend made tonight. But we are not prepared to shy away from our responsibility to keep the overall planning system up to date.
If we decide to press ahead with the proposed new business class, I am confident that the tailoring industry will take this in its stride. The industry may have to review the way its operations are organised. But in our view it has the talent and foresight to be able to continue to provide the levels of excellence in both its products and its service which have so long been synonymous with Savile Row.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Nine o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Reyes Syndrome
  Reyes Syndrome
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Departmental Vote (Cash Limits)
  Departmental Vote (Cash Limits)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flood Defence Work
  Flood Defence Work
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Lyminge Forest (Land Purchase)
  Lyminge Forest (Land Purchase)
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Food Sales
  Food Sales
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  AIDS
  AIDS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Zircon Satellite
  Zircon Satellite
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falklands Fisheries
  Falklands Fisheries
  Immigration
  Immigration
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committee Reports
  Select Committee Reports
PRIME MINISTER
  Terrorism (Syrian Involvement)
  Terrorism (Syrian Involvement)
  Peterhead
  Peterhead
  Football Supporters (Card Scheme)
  Football Supporters (Card Scheme)
  "The Secret Society"
  "The Secret Society"
  Engagements
  Engagements
SCOTLAND
  Caterpillar Tractor Company
  Caterpillar Tractor Company
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  NHS Hospitals
  NHS Hospitals
  Lord-Lieutenancies
  Lord-Lieutenancies
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Alcohol Addiction
  Alcohol Addiction
  Community Halls Advisory Service
  Community Halls Advisory Service
  Buses
  Buses
  Job Training
  Job Training
  Free School Transport
  Free School Transport
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Telephone Equipment
  Telephone Equipment
  Merchant Shipping
  Merchant Shipping
  Motor Components Industry
  Motor Components Industry
  Brewers and Distillers (Assistance)
  Brewers and Distillers (Assistance)
  Timeshare Developments
  Timeshare Developments
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Eurofer Plan
  Eurofer Plan
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mobile Support Units
  Mobile Support Units
  Informers
  Informers
TRANSPORT
  Radioactive Material
  Radioactive Material
  Fishing Industry (Safety)
  Fishing Industry (Safety)
  London Road Assessment Studies
  London Road Assessment Studies
  Trams (London)
  Trams (London)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
WALES
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Welsh College of Music and Drama
  Welsh College of Music and Drama
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  NHS Staff
  NHS Staff
  Lumi-Low
  Lumi-Low
  Spectrum Packaging
  Spectrum Packaging
  Re-chem International, Torfaen
  Re-chem International, Torfaen
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Registration Fees
  Registration Fees
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Alcohol
  Alcohol
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
EMPLOYMENT
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Community Programme (Member's Correspondence)
  Community Programme (Member's Correspondence)
  Restart Scheme
  Restart Scheme
  Job Clubs (Lancashire)
  Job Clubs (Lancashire)
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Training
  Training
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  Industrial Tribunals (Birmingham)
  Industrial Tribunals (Birmingham)
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Employment Measures (Statistics)
  Employment Measures (Statistics)
ENVIRONMENT
  Departmental Cash Limits
  Departmental Cash Limits
ENVIRONMENT
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Toxic Waste Dumps
  Toxic Waste Dumps
  Drains and Sewers
  Drains and Sewers
  Design Services
  Design Services
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Resource Allocations
  Resource Allocations
  London Research Centre
  London Research Centre
  Opinion Polls
  Opinion Polls
  Housing Provision
  Housing Provision
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Councillors (Voting Rights)
  Councillors (Voting Rights)
  Football Supporters
  Football Supporters
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Birmingham (Convention Centre)
  Birmingham (Convention Centre)
  Rating Valuation
  Rating Valuation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Land Register
  Land Register
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
  Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Armed Police Raids
  Armed Police Raids
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Chief Constables
  Chief Constables
  Police Authorities
  Police Authorities
  Immigration Control
  Immigration Control
  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Television (Advertising Time)
  Television (Advertising Time)
  City of London (Business Activities)
  City of London (Business Activities)
  Merseyside Police Authority
  Merseyside Police Authority
  Police Authorities (East Midlands)
  Police Authorities (East Midlands)
  Crack and Cocaine
  Crack and Cocaine
  Coroners
  Coroners
  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Victim Support Schemes
  Victim Support Schemes
  Trials (Scientific Witnesses)
  Trials (Scientific Witnesses)
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Fraud Squad
  Fraud Squad
  Local Authorities (Election)
  Local Authorities (Election)
  Police Duties
  Police Duties
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Road Traffic Legislation
  Road Traffic Legislation
  Crime Victims
  Crime Victims
  Sentencing Policy
  Sentencing Policy
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Police Strengths
  Police Strengths
  Drug Offenders
  Drug Offenders
  Prison Officers and Prisoners
  Prison Officers and Prisoners
  Crime Costs
  Crime Costs
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Harmondsworth Detention Centre
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Rape
  Rape
  EC (Tourism)
  EC (Tourism)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Postmen (Dog Attacks)
  Postmen (Dog Attacks)
  BBC
  BBC
  Police (Legal Actions)
  Police (Legal Actions)
  Royal Residences (Security)
  Royal Residences (Security)
  Journalists (Identity Cards)
  Journalists (Identity Cards)
  Drink-Driving Offences
  Drink-Driving Offences
  Fresh Start Programme
  Fresh Start Programme
  Fascist Conference
  Fascist Conference
  Wheel Clamping
  Wheel Clamping
  Police Cars (Accidents)
  Police Cars (Accidents)
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
DEFENCE
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Gun Battery, Belize
  Gun Battery, Belize
  Commando Forces (Air Defence)
  Commando Forces (Air Defence)
  Defence Budget (Exchange Rates)
  Defence Budget (Exchange Rates)
  Operation Lean Look
  Operation Lean Look
  Nuclear Deterrent
  Nuclear Deterrent
  RAF Vehicle (Accident)
  RAF Vehicle (Accident)
  Haslar Hospital
  Haslar Hospital
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
  Artillery Shells
  Artillery Shells
  Royal Ordnance Employees (Pensions)
  Royal Ordnance Employees (Pensions)
  Defence Schools of Music
  Defence Schools of Music
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Trident
  Trident
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  AIDS
  AIDS
  NHS (Staffing)
  NHS (Staffing)
  Kidney Donors
  Kidney Donors
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Reyes Syndrome
  Reyes Syndrome
  Aspirin
  Aspirin
  Social Security Appeals
  Social Security Appeals
  Alcohol Addiction
  Alcohol Addiction
  Dentistry (Peterborough)
  Dentistry (Peterborough)
  Riverside Health Authority (Hospitals)
  Riverside Health Authority (Hospitals)
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Registered Homes Act 1984
  London Hospital, Whitechapel
  London Hospital, Whitechapel
  Private Blood Banks
  Private Blood Banks
  Cancer (Screening Programmes)
  Cancer (Screening Programmes)
  Mrs. Manning (Correspondence)
  Mrs. Manning (Correspondence)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Nurse Training
  Nurse Training
  Generics (UK) Ltd.
  Generics (UK) Ltd.
  Harris Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
  Harris Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Finance
  Finance
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Airport Runway Capacity in South
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the demand for more runway space in the South of England following the statement made by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend proposes no immediate action. He is satisfied that the pattern of airport capacity provision in the South of England set out in the 1985 White Paper Airports Policy should be sufficient until at least 1995.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does that reply mean that the Government are contemplating no action at all? It did not seem to be a' direct answer to the Question. If it does mean that, may I ask the Government why they are so adamant in refusing to consider any additional runway capacity in the South of England? Is the noble Lord aware that the immediate past president of the CAA, Sir John Dent, and the present one, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, have both said that there will be a necessity for this? Do the Government take no account of chairmen of the Civil Aviation Authority in matters affecting civil aviation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the contrary my right honourable friend naturally pays close attention to the observations made by both Mr. Tugendhat and his predecessor as chairman of the CAA. If the CAA considers that additional airport capacity is needed, then the authority will formally so recommend to my right honourable friend as it is required to do so under Section 16(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. My right honourable friend has not yet received any such recommendation from the CAA but if he does, then he will, of course, give it most careful consideration.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am most grateful for that last grain of comfort? We might at least move a little further. But may I ask the Minister one further question? Does he recall that some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked the Government—and here I refer to Gatwick—whether they knew of any airport in the world which put through 25 million people on a single runway, and do the Government still think that that is a safe and advisable thing to do?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have details of the figures which the noble Baroness gives me as to whether Gatwick is the busiest airport with a single runway. But, in the 1985 White Paper, the Government re-affirmed that a second main runway should not be built, and the key reason for that was environmental.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, given my noble friend's first Answer—that the capacity is adequate only until 1995—and given the time which, as he knows, is required from the initiation of an airport scheme to the opening of the airport, is it not high time, whatever recommendations the Government were to receive from elsewhere, that the Government themselves were taking decisions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in my original Answer I said "until at least 1995". However, as I said in my second answer to the noble Baroness, if the CAA considers that additional airport capacity is needed, then it has the powers to recommend that to my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that he said the reason for not building a second runway at Gatwick was environmental? When he considers questions of environment, will he not realise that a second runway at Gatwick might do something to relieve the very severe pressure that there is upon Heathrow, with its noticeable impact upon those who happen to live under the flight path? Will he not agree that the environmental pressure on people living under the flight path is so great that, if environmental considerations count, this must lead to the construction of a second runway at Gatwick?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already stated the Government's position as regards the second runway at Gatwick. So far as Heathrow is concerned, there have been improvements over recent years due to the fact that aircraft are now quieter than they used to be. The review of night restrictions on flying is still going on at the moment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to remember that there are many runways in the North which are inadequately used, and that this is of no small consequence to the economic development of the North of England and of Scotland?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble frend is quite right. Of course, the Question refers to the South-East of England, but during the last few years there has been a very large increase in the usage of airports in the North of England, and particularly Manchester when not on strike. Certainly, it has been a great success story.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, in view of the fact that it is now, I think, accepted by the majority that it was a mistake to give way to the lobbyists of the county of Surrey and to restrict the runway capacity at Gatwick, is it not absolutely unforgivable to restrict Stansted to one runway?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the report which was produced in the White Paper of 1985, it was recommended by the inspector that the second runway at Gatwick should not be built and the Government stand by that decision.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I know that, but I asked whether, in the light of experience there, it is not an unforgiveable error to restrict the runway capacity at Stansted to one runway.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to correct something he said a minute or two ago about the strike at Manchester airport. He implied that the staff of the airport were on strike. In fact, I understand that it is the fire services which are on strike there, and it was perhaps an unfortunate reference to the people who work at Manchester airport who would like to see aircraft going through.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if I gave that impression I certainly did not mean to. I said that there was a strike at Manchester airport. I attributed no blame to one side or the other as to who was responsible for it. But it is unfortunately hampering the development of what is a very successful airport indeed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government have undertaken that they will not increase Stansted beyond 8 million passengers per annum up to a possible 18 million without parliamentary action on the matter, and that the runway at Stansted could, regrettably, take 25 million passengers per annum? Before any additional runway capacity is provided in the South-East, can the Minister assure the House that the widest consultation and consideration will be given to airports elsewhere in the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord was quite right when he said that the first phase at Stansted will be restricted to no more than 8 million passengers per year, and that this will be done by means of an air transport movement limit imposed by order on affirmative resolution. Any further increase to, say, 15 million in the second phase, will also be subject to parliamentary approval. So I think there is plenty of opportunity for those concerned to make their feelings felt.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, on a point of clarification of what the Minister has said (because it is important), did I understand him correctly to tell the House that in connection with the laying down of any runways anywhere in the country, and not just in the South-East of England—though I mentioned the South—the primary condition would be environmental? Are we to understand from that that the environmental lobby has precedence over that of the aviation industry or anything else in connection with civil aviation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. That is not what I said. I was answering the noble Baroness specifically on the question of a second runway at Gatwick, when I said that environmental considerations had ruled that out.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I am sorry, my Lords. Is the noble Lord aware that when he refers to Hansard he will see that he said what I said he said? Perhaps he will write to me and give me an answer on it? May I have an answer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course, I will write to the noble Baroness. We shall just have to wait and see what Hansard says. But I was answering the noble Baroness's question about a second runway at Gatwick.

Hereditary Peerages: Female Descent
3.9 p.m.
Lord Diamond: 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, following the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the recent revival of creations of hereditary Peerages, they will take steps to enable hereditary Peerages created in future to descend to females, and to provide that the eldest child of whatever sex will inherit.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government have no present plans to extend the Act to this area or to take other steps to change the system.Lord Diamond: My Lords, is that not a very unsatisfactory Answer for the House of Lords to accept? How can the noble Earl possibly justify a continuation of the present practice which so blatantly discriminates against women when we all recently spent a good deal of time tightening up the law on sex discrimination and when the early Baronies by Writ and some Scottish Peerages already allow for succession by women where there is no male heir? Also, we enjoy a situation in which Her Majesty is not only our Queen but is accepted as such by hundreds of thousands of people of all sorts of creeds, colours and customs as Head of the Commonwealth.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, notwithstanding the recent strengthening of the law, there are still a number of areas where discrimination on grounds of sex is not illegal. Some of that discrimination disadvantages men and some disadvantages women. Notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, the Government are not aware that there is a great deal of concern on this matter or that it causes great difficulty.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, surely the exceptions to which the noble Earl refers where sexual discrimination is still allowed are all allowed under the Act. Will he tell us under what section of the Sex Discrimination Act this form of discrimination is permitted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not affect the present system of inherited Peerages.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, not slightly misconceived? If we were to follow the idea to its logical conclusion, we should be altering the succession to the Crown. Does the Minister agree that if people give something to somebody with a certain line of gift afterwards, that should be adhered to in later life?
Lord Caithness: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I was happy to bow to the noble Baroness and to the Premier Baron. Having done so, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in the case of the Portal and the Mountbatten Peerages a daughter was enabled to succeed by special remainder? Is this not a precedent which could be followed for future creations where there is no male heir?
The Earl of Caithness: Possibly, my Lords.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in view of the mistake made by my llth great—grandfather 500 years ago in changing the system from heirs general to heirs male, and in view of the very different ideas of today, is his act not an excellent precedent for putting the matter right now and allowing the ladies to have what they should have?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, speaking entirely personally, no, because I should not be here!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl recollect that in this House a short while ago and under the stewardship of Lord Chancellor we passed legislation to see that those who are born out of wedlock should suffer no disadvantage at law? If he succumbs to the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will he kindly have that aspect in mind?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am even more tempted not to succumb to the noble Lord's blandishments.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have both daughters and sons and they have quite enough to argue about already?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Earl should give way to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would he not at the same time think it proper to introduce legislation that would lay down that the possession of an hereditary Peerage does not connote the right to sit in this Chamber?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, while I perfectly obviously—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I apologise to those who still wish to enter this discussion, but I feel that it has gone on long enough. I think the House feels that we have had an amusing time over this Question. However, I believe your Lordships will wish to pass on to other business.

Prison Overcrowding
3.15 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 action they are taking to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our major prison building programme will yield a further 17,200 places in new and expanded prisons by the mid-1990's. We are making better use of the existing prison estate, where necessary by changing the functions of establishments, to match changes which have occurred and are projected to occur in the nature of the prison population.
We are continuing to encourage the use of non-custodial sentences for persons convicted of less serious offences. We are also working to improve the flow of cases through the courts so as to stem the increase in the proportion of prisoners on remand.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that considerable Answer. May I ask him for further information about the existing plans for alternative to custody and how they are being utilised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are fortunate in this country to have open to the judiciary perhaps the greatest range of non—custodial sentences available anywhere. These have been taken up in a number of ways. For instance, community service orders have gone up from 10,277 to 33,800. Over the same time-scale, probation orders have gone up from 23,000 to 37,200. So full use is being made of those alternatives.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister will know that one of the most serious aspects of overcrowding in prisons today is the large number of people in prison who are on remand in custody. The Minister did mention that matter. However, I should like to know what he intends to do to try and reduce the appalling proportion of those who have not yet been tried but who are in prison.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are trying to improve the situation as regards speed of trials. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has made the position considerably better by the creation of further courts and additional members of the judiciary. Whether or not a person is remanded in custody of course depends upon the case.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, since the prison building programme seems likely to be

329
insufficient, will the noble Earl consider the possibility of prison-capping, so that when the number of inmates reaches a certain figure his right honourable friend can use his executive privilege to release inmates in appropriate categories in order to keep numbers down to an acceptable maximum? Is the noble Earl aware that this practice is carried out in at least one state in the United States of America and that its use was recently threatened by the French Minister of Justice?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difficulty with the proposal of the right reverand Prelate is to get any agreement as to what the right level for a prison population is, and whether it is right for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or for any Home Secretary to turn to a judge and say, "There is no room for these people in prison", or, "I cannot release that number of people". It has been tried, as the right reverend Prelate says, in various countries. For that reason, two-thirds of the convicted prisoners in Holland are still awaiting their time in prison.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is it not a fact that many reports over the past decade bearing on the growing crisis in prisons have advocated shorter maxima for prison sentences for non-violent offences? Is the noble Earl aware that I can think of no report which has not been constant in advocating that course? Is he further aware that two fairly recent surveys of public opinion, one commissioned by the Home Office and the other commissioned by the Prison Reform Trust, have shown clearly that the public would favour shorter maximum sentences for non-violent offenders? Given the fact that the great majority of prisoners now in our prisons are serving sentences for non-violent offences, is there not a case for early legislation to deal with the problem in that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe it is absolutely right, and in fact it is the duty of Parliament, to provide a variety of non-custodial sentences, as well as the option of a prison sentence. It is up to the independent judiciary to determine what sentence is appropriate.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give the percentage of persons remanded in custody who are subsequently found not guilty?
The Earl of Caithness: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the most cost-effective and humane sentence is that which bears the least likelihood of causing the person to re-offend and to be recommited to prison? In that context, will he tell us what priority is given by his department to the treatment known as intermediate treatment, which has the lowest re-offending record of any of the treatments of which I am aware? Will he give priority to it and in particular look at the work being done by Mountbatten training at Gyde House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in stating that the Government's policy is to reduce the level of crime and the number of those who re-offend once they have been convicted.
330
We are giving the area of intermediate treatment substantial sums of money and we wish to encourage it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman whether he will encourage more treatment centres such as Phoenix House for drug abusers and for alcoholics, and also whether he will encourage more meaningful deterrents in cases of rape so that people do not do this?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are seeking various methods of funding to encourage treatments for alcoholism and drug abuse both outside and within prison. With regard to the second question of my noble kinswoman, the matter of sentences is of course up to the judiciary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the question of remands in custody, is the noble Earl aware that while in office the predecessor of the present Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, announced in an article in The Times that as a result of the steps he had taken there would be no further need to remand prisoners in police custody? Is he further aware that in a Written Answer which he gave me at the end of last year he indicated that more than 200 prisoners a week on average were being kept in police custody? What steps are the Government taking to honour Mr. Brittan's promise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the time that the then Home Secretary made that statement he was absolutely right to say what he did. Unfortunately, the prediction of future trends in the prison population has proved a very difficult task to carry out with any accuracy, and the prison population has increased far more dramatically than he predicted. The way to overcome this problem is, first, to improve the regimes within prison so that there is a greater flexibility for accepting prisoners who are sentenced or remanded in custody late on in the afternoon; and, secondly, to improve the prison building programme, which should have been started before the Government came to office.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has a crisis on his hands just as serious as that which has exploded in Scotland over recent weeks? Does he agree that the centre of this crisis, as has already been suggested, is the enormous increase in the percentage of men and women being remanded to local prisons by the courts? Is he aware that there are today more than 7,000 such people banged up in cells without sanitation for 23 hours a day? What emergency measures does he have to prevent the prison officers and the prisoners deciding to say, as they will soon, enough is enough?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of points which would take a great deal of time to answer. It is wise to point out to the House that as a percentage the level of overcrowding is the same today as it was in 1970. It is a problem that has remained with us. Where we have failed in the past is in providing adequate resources to build new prisons. This is what the Government are doing.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is great public apprehension about the diversity of policies throughout the various courts in the land on the whole question of sentencing? Will he bear in mind the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about non-violent crimes and the points that have been made about remand? In view of the serious situation, does he think that there is room for an inquiry to be held jointly between his department and, if appropriate, the Lord Chancellor's department to see whether there can be some adequate recommendations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the Bail Act and bail hostels, a number of options are available to the judiciary. It is part of our programme to continue to bring them to the attention of the judiciary but at the end of the day it is up to the judiciary and not the executive to decide on each case.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, with further reference to the question of the noble Lord on the Liberal Banches who referred to remand prisoners being put into local prisons, is the noble Earl aware that in the greater London area where I live prisoners on remand are being placed in local police stations in completely unsatisfactory circumstances?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we deplore the fact that some people on remand are kept in police cells overnight. As I explained in an earlier answer, this is what we want to get rid of by building more prisons.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the change in the rules of bail has increased or reduced the number of prisoners on remand?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there was a substantial reduction in the number of prisoners as a result of the Bail Act but unfortunately the number of those on remand has increased. It is the increase in the numbers on remand rather than the number of sentenced prisoners that has posed the problems of overcrowding that we have today.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the noble Earl once again but, with respect, he did not answer my question. Following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should like to put it to him again. Does he agree that in the long-standing and growing crisis in our prisons there is an urgent case for bringing in further legislation to lower the maxima for prison sentences for most categories of non-violent offenders?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think it is wise on each case for the judiciary to have an option of sentences. It is up to the judge, having heard the full details of the case, to make up his mind what the appropriate sentence should be. But we do not hesitate to draw to the attention of the judiciary the range of non-custodial options, should they be appropriate.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, as part of the process which the noble Earl described, can he tell the House whether the Government have yet given
332
consideration to the recent working party report of NACRO which recommended fewer prison sentences for social security offences?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have given consideration and are continuing to give consideration to that report. I believe that a Motion for a debate is down on the Order Paper but the date has not yet been fixed.

Public Records: Publication
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 criteria were used to determine which 1956 official papers should not be made publicly available under the 30-year rule and which impartial authority was asked for advice.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone): My Lords, the criteria were those set out in Cmnd. Paper 8531, paragraphs 26 to 28 inclusive. In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the Lord Chancellor adopted the procedure described in paragraph 40 of the same paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the matter of national security cannot apply to those papers that were not published on 1st January? As the papers published have revealed that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of the time both lied to Parliament and that the British Government colluded with Israel and France, national security cannot be used as an excuse for not publishing the large number of papers which I understand were suppressed on 1st January. As regards the second part of the Question, the noble and learned Lord told me on 14th January that where papers concerned him personally consultation was taken with an impartial third authority. Can he tell the House who was the impartial third authority?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, certainly: but I recommend that he reads paragraph 40 of the paper. As regards the first part, I think the noble Lord has strayed a little far from his original Question on what were the criteria adopted in relation to those papers. He will know that security is only one of at least three groups of criteria.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that I was on his advisory council for nine years and that even before he makes a decision he is advised by many erudite people, much more erudite than myself. There are three main criteria. Only very selective documents are considered for further closure. Will my noble and learned friend agree that the present system, which has been working for a very long time, is extremely satisfactory?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I should like to thank him for the

333
work he is doing on the advisory council. It is a very important public service. I am grateful to him for his question and the answer is, yes.
Lord Denning: My Lords, as I was chairman of that advisory council for about 20 years, may I suggest that we did our work, applied the right criteria and were independent of any government influence whatever? We had valuable assistance on all sides.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will acknowledge that my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches is wholly independent of government.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his somewhat Delphic initial answer, on the assumption that we are very familiar with the details that are implicit in the documents referred to, can he say whether the minutes of Cabinet meetings in 1956 were disclosed to the public in the recent releases?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my recollection is that they were all set out at great length in Robert Rhodes James's biography of Anthony Eden.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree with me that the reduction from 50 years to 30 years for the closure of documents was made in the interests of historians? There is no discontent in that profession. It was never thought that the reduction was to enable people to make party policital points in either House of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would certainly have saved me a certain amount of embarrassment today and a week ago.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that in view of the disclosures that were made by those papers published on 1st January, and the additional fact that it is well known that a large number of papers were not published, there is a danger that suspicion will grow, and is growing, among the public in this country that the truth is not being told, at least not until too late? When one relates the disclosures made about the events of 1956 to occasions like the conduct of the Falkland war, the Westland affair and now Zircon, there is a great danger that the public will lose, and is losing, confidence in the veracity of government spokesmen in both Houses.
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords, and I do not think that the noble Lord should encourage any apprehension of that kind.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after four o'clock this afternon, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the house, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on private rented housing.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed.

Debtors (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Time to pay directions]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 1. I have to point out that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 25 to 36.
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 4, which, in a sense, is consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore to the Bill the provisions on the lines that the Scottish Law Commission recommended. This clause allows time to pay directions to be made by the court when granting decree. Various government and local government types of debt are excluded in the Bill—Inland Revenue, rates, and various Customs and Excise matters.
At paragraph 3.12 of the first volume of its report the Law Commission recommend that there should be the power for the court to make what is, in effect, an instalment decree for such debts. The report states:
"Consistently with these recommendations"
there are various other recommendations about imprisonment for debt—
"and the recommendation made below [we recommend] that time to pay orders should apply to rates and tax arrears being recovered by summary warrant".
It is to restore that aspect that I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I looked very closely at this particular amendment and I readily accept that the Scottish Law Commission has recommended the course that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggests. However, I am somewhat baffled about the contents. We are talking about Crown debts. In particular I am concerned about the regulations regarding VAT.
As someone with a layman's experience of paying VAT at the time when VAT was brought in, I have always understood that we are unpaid tax collectors or agents. If we are agents, are we entitled to follow the

335
course suggested by the noble Lord opposite? It seems to me that the money which is passing through our hands as VAT is not our own money. We are merely acting as agents for the Government. That is my first point and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Secondly, on Second Reading there was some discussion about the future of rates, the community charge, and so on. I wonder whether the arrangements which Scottish local authorities have at present for the payment of rates by instalments do not meet the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is making about how to deal reasonably with the payment of rates: albeit that those who are not very well off will get rate rebates. Those were two points that struck me particularly, and that is why I have very great reservations about the acceptance of this amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: As he explained, in this amendment the noble Lord opposite is attempting to remove an exemption for rates and certain tax debts from the time to pay arrangements. I hasten to add that the amendment does not remove the exemption for summary warrants, so it will apply only to ordinary court actions for the debts concerned. That is an important point to bear in mind.
When deciding to make the exemption for rates and certain tax debts I had in mind certain considerations which are mentioned by the Scottish Law Commission in their report, particularly in paragraph 355. Those considerations are that rates and tax defaulters tend to withhold payment long after they would pay ordinary debts, and also tend to be better off than ordinary debtors; and furthermore that rates and tax collectors are involuntary creditors, in that they are collecting agents in a real sense. I think that that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Sanderson. For instance, as regards VAT, the Committee will recollect the discussions that took place about Crown preference during debates on the insolvency legislation that went through this Chamber two sessions ago. At that time I do not think that there was any doubt—indeed it was accepted by the Scottish Law Commission and in the Cork report—that so far as concerns certain taxes the individual debtor was merely acting as a collecting agent and had no right to the money that he had failed to pass on. In those circumstances one asks for the reasons why he should be given any further extension of time to meet his commitment as a debtor.
Another point to which my noble friend has made reference in regard to rates is that local authorities already have provision for payment of rates by instalments. I understand that they also have recovery procedures for unpaid rates which can allow considerable periods of time for their payment. That again is a matter which I had in mind.
So far as revenue payments are concerned, and PAYE in particular, employers make deductions from the salary of the person who is in fact the revenue payer. Again, the employer is standing in as a collecting agent in a sense.
As regards the individual taxpayer who accounts directly to the revenue departments, the revenue
336
departments allow payment of tax arrears by instalments in cases of genuine hardship. However—and this point is important when one has in mind the whole system of tax collection—the debtor usually has a continuing liability to pay, and indeed instalment arrangements for arrears may disrupt or interfere with the future round of payments. By the same token the revenue departments also have existing recovery procedures which produce lengthy delays between default and eventual payment—that is to say, they are prepared to wait a reasonable time for arrangements for payment to be made.
Having regard to all these matters, I took the view that further time to pay arrangements were neither necessary nor appropriate for debts of the nature set out in subsection (5) and covered by this amendment—namely, subsections (d), (e), and (1)—for debts due to the Inland Revenue, to a rating authority or to Customs and Excise, in relation to the three duties or taxes due thereunder.
I appreciate that in this Bill the noble Lord may be subjecting the status of the Crown as creditor to the same scrutiny that was paid to it during the passage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act of that same year. However, I do not feel that the considerations which rightly exercised this assembly when examining preferential debts in sequestration apply to time to pay arrangements in this Bill. In those Acts we were dealing with the question of personal bankruptcy or insolvency.
Any privilege, if that is what it is, which is granted to the Crown is not directly at the expense of other creditors. That was an important point made in those debates. Nor, for reasons that I have already given, does it harm the legitimate interests of debtors. Secondly, the continuing liability inherent in rates and taxes is not particularly relevent in sequestration but it is of considerable practical significance in time to pay arrangements. Finally, the Committee may recall that "collecting agent" debts, for instance Pay as You Earn, VAT and National Insurance, were regarded as different from ordinary debts in important respects and so were deserving of special treatment.
I hope that with all those reasons I shall have persuaded the noble Lord opposite that in the circumstances it may be better to withdraw his amendment. I must, of course, make it clear to him that I cannot accept it.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. How can a debt be due in respect of car tax? One does not receive one's licence until the money has been paid, so the money can never be due, surely?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I do not think that the subsection concerns vehicle licences. It is dealing with a specific form of tax that is due, as I recollect it, on new cars. If I am wrong about this matter I shall certainly write to my noble friend, but I am quite clear that it does not refer to vehicle excise licences, which I think is the point to which he is referring.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It was interesting to hear something which I do not think the Committee has

337
heard before; namely, the reasons of the Government for leaving out this recommendation of the Law Commission. Of course, the Law Commission had considered these factors and come to a different conclusion. The factors mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would be considered by the sheriff or the court in deciding whether to make an instalment order. There might well be circumstances in which they considered that they should not do so and of course they have the power not to make an instalment order. It is a matter of discretion only. I should like to study what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("action") to ("for") in line 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to certain other amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 5, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87 and 96. The amendment that I now move is one of a number of amendments which at first sight may seem to be substantial but which do not make any appreciable change to the provisions of the Bill. Their purpose is simply to take account of the fact that the concept of a "proper officer" which appears at present in the Bill does not fit readily into the collection procedures for car tax and VAT. The amendments quite simply delete references to "proper officer" and substitute references to "the Commissioners". They are, of course, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and there are therefore certain consequential changes which are necessary and the amendments also provide for these.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on the main consequential amendment which is in Schedule 4 relating both to a new paragraph (7) and a new paragraph (9) which deal with the provision of regulations to enable an officer to carry out the functions of the commissioners. This is necessary because without such a power of delegation all these summary warrant procedures would require to be carried out by the commissioners themselves. It does not require much imagination to see that that would be an impossible task.
To ensure, however, that summary warrant applications and any diligence—that is to say, legal step which follows—are dealt with at a sufficiently senior level, the regulations are allowed to specify that the officer concerned must hold a certain rank. This continues the current practice that summary warants are dealt with only by officers of a certain rank or above which is required in existing regulations. I therefore commend this amendment and the consequential ones to the Committee and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("(9) The sheriff clerk shall if requested by the debtor advise him if interest is payable on the debt and of the method of calculating such interest.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very minor matter in one sense, but in another sense it is fairly important. The intention behind this amendment is to make sure that the debtor who is asking for a payment by instalments or a time to pay direction should be aware of the consequences of what he may have to pay by way of interest. This might well mean that if he were aware of it he would make a different offer and perhaps try to make the payment rather more quickly. It is because it is felt, particularly by the Scottish Consumer Council, that debtors are often unaware of the consequences of interest and expenses mounting up that it is thought—and I would suggest it is proper—that the sheriff clerk should have a duty to explain this matter. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I should like to say from these Benches that I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will accept this amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: In indicating that I do not think it is necessary to have this amendment and that I cannot accept it for the reason upon which I will now expand, I must ask the Committee to have regard to subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1. Interest is always payable on court decrees for payment of a principal sum of money, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, and the noble Lord opposite are fully aware. But under the Bill it may only be recovered under a time to pay direction if the creditor claims it in accordance with subsection (7) of Clause 1. That is to say, the creditor must claim it before a prescribed date and he must specify the amount claimed. He must serve notice of that on the debtor so that the debtor is fully appraised of what the creditor's claim is under a time to pay direction.
It is right that the Scottish Law Commission devised this provision to remedy a defect in the current summary cause instalment decree where there is no duty on creditors to intimate a claim for interest in time to ensure that the interest can be paid by the specified intalments. Interest on court decrees runs on the amount due under the decree until it is paid in full. I am certain that both noble Lords are fully aware of that.
Accordingly, it seems to me that since the Bill specifically provides for intimation of the very information which the noble Lord opposite seeks, it could be said that this amendment is totally unnecessary. It may be misleading for the simple fact beyond others that the court which grants the decree is not necessarily the sheriff court but may include the court of session. In those circumstances, the sheriff clerk would have no advice whatsoever to offer to the debtor.
I can appreciate the point which the noble Lord opposite was making and I think it is very valid. But it is already covered in the Bill in a much more satisfactory way because the debtor can assume, if he does not get notice, that no interest is being claimed by the creditor in the time to pay direction. Were there to be something of this kind with the debtor going to a sheriff, he might do that before notice was served and be wholly confused. That must be one of the things which we wish to make certain does not arise in this legislation. For those reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: Some debtors will not have read this Bill. Is it not possible that this would be useful? The noble and learned Lord is not saying that they cannot consult the sheriff clerk. All he is saying that it is not a statutory right. Is that correct?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: That is exactly what I am saying, yes.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Then I think the best thing for me to do is to beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Time to pay orders]:
Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 25, leave out from ("debt") to ("including") in line 26.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Disposal of application]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) After the sheriff has heard parties he may make a time to pay order either in the terms offered by the debtor or in such other terms as he considers appropriate having due regard to the financial and personal circumstances of the debtor or he may refuse to make a time to pay order.")
The noble Lord said: No doubt I shall be told by the noble and learned Lord opposite that this amendment is unnecessary, but the Bill as drafted appears to reach a situation where if the debtor and creditor do not agree, the debtor having made an offer of instalments and the creditor not agreeing, the sheriff then has to make up his mind. But as the Bill is drafted, it appears that he had to make up his mind either to accept or reject the debtor's offer.
The amendment seeks to make it clear, as trust is the intention, that the sheriff should have an opportunity to make an order for a different instalment than that offered by the debtor and is not restricted either to accepting the debtor's offer and making that instalment or making no order for instalments at all. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened to what the noble Lord has said. I understand his saying that this needs to go in so that a different order might be contemplated, but it seems to me to say in the legislation that a time to pay order would require one to take account of the financial circumstances is extraordinary. Anything that was done at any time by such an order would have to take account of the financial circumstances. That is what "time to pay" means.
340
As to the personal circumstances, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what personal circumstances he means. If it is something to do with whether or not the person is employed, the salient point is what he is earning. Those are the financial circumstances. Surely personal details other than financial circumstances are not relevant to this matter.
4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I must apologise to the Committee. Something has gone wrong with the amendment that I intended to be Amendment No. 6. The best course is for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and come back at a later stage with the amendment that I meant to put in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
General provision.
("PART IA
DEBT ARRANGEMENT SCHEMES
Nature, content and effect of schemes
—(1) A scheme (to be known as a "debt arrangement scheme") providing for the orderly and regular payment of the debts of a debtor who is an individual may be made, on application being made therefore to the sheriff, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.
(2) A debt arrangement scheme may provide—

(a) for an extension of time for the payment of the debts, whether by instalments or otherwise;

(b) for discharge of the debts on payment only to the extent of a composition; or

(c) both for such an extension of time and for discharge on payment only to the extent of a composition.

(3) A scheme which provides for—

(a) an extension of time for the payment of the debts, shall specify a period within which the payments shall be made, being a period not exceeding 3 years after the date when the scheme comes into force;

(b) payment only to the extent of a composition shall state—

(i) the proportion of the amount of each creditor's debt; and

(ii) the total amount,

to be paid under the scheme:
Provided that this paragraph shall have effect in relation to a debt which is included in the scheme on its variation under section 28(1) of this Act as if after the words "under the scheme" there were added the words "and under a decree granted under section 31(6)(a) of this Act.".
(4) Every scheme shall provide that all sums to be paid thereunder shall be payable to a person appointed under this Part of this Act (to be known as the "administrator") and, subject to sections 36(6)(a)(i) and 37(2) of this Act, shall thereafter be disbursed by him to the creditors whose debts are included in the scheme; and the scheme shall regulate the method and times for the making of such payments to the administrator and for such disbursement by him.
(5) A scheme may include a provision (subject to such conditions as may be specified in the scheme) that the debtor shall, within a period specified in the scheme—

(a) pay such funds to the administrator as may be so specified;

(b) dispose of such assets (not being articles of moveable property exempt from diligence) as may be so specified and pay the net proceeds of such disposal to the administrator for disbursement to the creditors in accordance with the scheme.

(6) A scheme may include a condition that the debtor shall not be entitled, while the scheme is in force, to obtain credit exceeding an amount or amounts specified in the condition:

341
Provided that—

(a) no condition so included shall restrict the obtaining of credit by the debtor for the purpose of paying—

(i) rent; or

(ii) debts incurred in obtaining the supply of fuel or energy, for his residence,

(b) the scheme may exempt from the condition the obtaining of credit for the purposes of paying for such goods or services as may be specified in the condition.

(7) Every scheme shall include a statement that an order may be made under section 25(1) of this Act.
(8) It shall only be competent to include in a scheme debts for the payment of which the debtor is personally liable.
(9) A scheme shall come into force on the date on which an order under section 24 of this Act confirming the scheme takes effect and shall cease to have effect on the death of the debtor or as provided in section 32()1) of this Act.
(10) A scheme may be made only on an application by the debtor and the debtor may withdraw his application at any time before confirmation of the scheme under section 24 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may with the leave of the Committee speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 35 inclusive. The intention of this amendment is to insert into the Bill the debt arrangements scheme provisions recommended by the Scottish Law Commission. In putting forward the amendment, I have taken the wording as it was drafted by the Scottish Law Commission in its draft Bill. I fully realise that if the amendment is accepted, as I trust it will be, numerous alterations will be required on Report to take account of the slightly different cross-references that will be required, as the Government have made certain changes in other place from the Law Commission's draft Bill. The Committee may be prepared to consider this matter in principle, so to speak, rather than deal with the detailed drafting errors that no doubt exist and are of course my responsibility.
It is clear from the Law Commission's Report that it regarded the debt arrangement scheme as an important, if not crucial, part of its proposals for reform. It is unfortunate that the Government have not accepted that part of the recommendation. The debt arrangement scheme is supported by the Scottish Law Society and the Scottish Consumer Council.
A debt arrangement scheme would be new in Scotland, but as the Law Commission points out in paragraph 4.31, it is a common provision in other countries where the law is on a similar basis to that of Scotland. It has been available in England since 1883 under the scope and name of an administration order.
The Cork Report in connection with England and Wales said (it is quoted at paragraph 4.32):
"no doubt that the most urgent need of all is for the introduction of a simple, accessible and inexpensive procedure for dealing with the ordinary consumer debtor, whose conduct does not require investigation, and who has no significant realisable assets, but who has a reasonable prospect of being able to discharge all or part of his liabilities out of future earnings".
As I understand it, it was the Law Commission's view that the debt arrangement scheme was necessary and proper. One frequently had a situation where people were in debt, they were in work or had an income, and although their assets at any particular time were insufficient to meet their debts, there was some prospect that they would be able to meet those debts from their future earnings.
The survey carried out by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys on defenders in debt actions in
342
Scotland, which reported in 1981, said that nearly three-quarters of the defenders in debt actions were having difficulty not only with that bill but with other bills. The Edinburgh University survey of debtors, on a much smaller sample, revealed that one-half of the 100 debtors that it investigated, against whom diligence was being done, were in arrears on other debts as well.
In making this recommendation the Scottish Law Commission says at paragraph 4.6:
"The research suggests that procedures are needed to enable multiple debtors to gain time to pay their debts free from the threat of diligence. The plight of a debtor subjected top diligence by one creditor may be bad enough but may be considerably worsened if he is pressed on all sides by several creditors. In Chapter 2, we saw that particular steps in diligence frequently operate as a catalyst for an instalment settlement. Where the debtor has defaulted on debts due to several creditors, he may find it difficult to enter into payment arrangements with all his creditors …if he simply does nothing, then his total indebtedness may be increased considerably since his several creditors may initiate separate court actions".
This place has discussed at length—fortunately for me I was not involved—the reform of the bankruptcy law in Scotland. The recent Act however means that a debtor with insufficient assets (the ones with whom we are principally concerned) to make sequestration worth while has now no court procedure by which he can initiate some method of making orderly and regular payments of his debts over a reasonable period.
The changes in the bankruptcy law, according to the Law Commission (I wholly agree with it) increased the need for the debt arrangement scheme. It argues that point convincingly at paragraph 4.15 of its report. At Paragraph 4.18 it points out that the debt arrangement scheme is very much to the advantage of the unsecured creditor who has no preferences and who therefore finds sequestration a futile remedy. The debt arrangement scheme:
"is designed essentially for cases where the debtor, while possibly having considerable debts, has assets whose proceeds on sale may be divided among the creditors. But in Scotland, where most people do not own their homes, there are many insolvent small debtors who have income but no assets of any consequence available for distribution.".
It was for that purpose that the debt arrangement scheme was put forward. It is an essential part of the Law Commission's proposals for reform.
The latest civil judicial statistics, which were published last month but relate to 1984, show that there are over 100,000 summary actions for debt in Scotland each year. If about three—quarters of those debtors have more than one debt and are in difficulties, which seems to be the expectation, it is obvious that a great need would be met by having something like the debt arrangement scheme.
That is essentially what the Cork Report recommended for England and Wales. I strongly urge the Committee to accept it. At paragraph 4.33, the Law Commission states:
"a study of other legal systems fortifies us in our conclusion that debt arrangement schemes would fill a gap in the provision made by Scots law for helping ordinary consumer debtors and small traders to arrange for the orderly payment of debts".
I am sure every member of the Committee would want that. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: This is an amendment of great importance. I hope that the Government will

343
give it full consideration even if they do not accept it today. Because of the inclement weather a few weeks ago I was unfortunately unable to be present at Second Reading.
Let me say frankly that after reading this full and comprehensive report but before I had seen the Bill, I had not made up my mind whether the proposals for debt arrangement schemes were sound. I awaited the Bill with interest to see the basis on which the Government had refused to accept these important recommendations, and so reach a conclusion. I was inclined at the early stage to see objections to the scheme. I assumed that, since the Government had not accepted the recommendations it might be said that the scheme would cause undue disruption of the normal work of the sheriff courts, which already have a great burden of civil and criminal work.
I was not able to hear what the Lord Advocate said to justify the Government's refusal to accept the recommendations, but I read what he had to say. In broad terms I understood him to say—I am sorry that I do not have Hansard with me to enable me to quote precisely—that the Government felt that it was not worth the trouble that implementation of the provisions would involve, and that they would not produce results to justify placing such a burden of work upon the courts. Having given the matter further consideration, in the light of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said—I shall avoid so far as possible repeating what he said—I hope that the Government will give further consideration to it.
This matter has preoccupied governments of all political complexions over the years, certainly for as long as I recall having had anything to do with the work of the courts in Scotland. Many commissions have been set up under eminent men of law, but nothing was ever done. The Scottish Law Commission has given prolonged consideration to the matter. What it has produced in effect—this is the sort of consideration that persuaded me to reach a firm and definite conclusion similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—is a package. The whole thing hangs together. I understand that the sheriff clerks are quite happy to accept the burden that would be placed on them if it were accepted, as I hope it will be. They would normally discharge the duties of administrators under these debt arrangement schemes. Now that we have at last got to the stage of dealing with this matter, which is completely non-controversial in any party terms, with the benefit of a full 500-page report in which the Scottish Law Commission has reached a conclusion—and I resist the temptation to refer to any part of the commission's report, because the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has directed attention to the crucial passages—I think that it would be a great pity if, for any but the most weighty considerations, the Committee were to decline to reintroduce into the framework of the Bill these powerful recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment presented so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This is a crucial part of the Bill, and I realise that your Lordships must consider every aspect of it before coming to a conclusion. I read with great care what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on Second Reading, and I very much agreed with the words that he used about the debt counselling schemes going on in Birmingham.
I should like to put to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate the proposition that the Scottish Consumer Council might take a leaf out of the book of the people of Birmingham and pursue this. Surely, the whole question of debt and getting into debt requires much counselling at an early stage to prevent greater problems arising later. Prevention is so much better than cure.
To come to the amendment, I stress again that I am at a disadvantage as I am not a lawyer in these matters. I have looked at the whole of the debt arrangement scheme, and I think that it is extremely complex. I believe that this was mentioned on Second Reading. I am fortified in that view because I understand that the Scottish Consumer Council and the Citizens Advice Bureaux realise that it is an extremely complex scheme although both, with the Scottish Law Commission, see some merit in it.
It was also pointed out on Second Reading that it was costly and voluntary. Costly it may be, but I would rather leave that on one side. When dealing with such difficult questions as debtors and creditors, it is better to leave that matter alone. The voluntary side of the whole operation gives me some cause for concern in that, as I understand it, the scheme would operate over a three-year period when creditors are bound to hold off.
I wish to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate whether we have any experience of such an arrangement working elsewhere. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, says that it has been in operation in some parts of England for some time. If that is so, what are the facts? Can we deduce from the arrangements that have been made south of the Border that it is "a good thing"? My understanding from what I have heard—and perhaps I have not hard the whole story—is that the figures emerging in relation to the scheme are not particularly encouraging. If that is so, we want to know about those figures before we make up our minds. Finally, if it is so good, why is it a voluntary scheme?
I understand that the Scottish Law Commission looked at the question of whether it should be more than a voluntary scheme, but rejected it because it would mean a full means test inquiry. I have my doubts because, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Shuna now says, I understand that the numbers are relatively small when one comes to the final stage in this procedure. If that is the case, are we enacting complex legislation which at the end of the day will produce a mouse?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to endorse what my noble friend has said about the apparent complexity of the scheme to a lay person. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord

345
Wilson of Langside, found it so attractive because in my experience he always pays great attention to how the ordinary person will react to something very close to his own interest. It seems to me that this series of amendments would add 29 pages to the Bill. They are 29 pages of which only one or two are comprehensible to me as a layman even after reading and re-reading them two or three times. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is in agreement with me. I expect that he had the same difficulty. That is a valid criticism which has been made by a number of the people consulted both by the Law Commission initially and by the Government subsequently. I understand that the response was a little lukewarm: I can understand that on those grounds.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend one point. On this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Morton, made the point that this applies only to people who are earning. In the Second Reading debate (at col. 492 of Hansard) the noble Lord said that the idea was to deal with a situation where people were chasing one debtor who through misfortune, illness or loss of employment had not been able to pay. I do not know whether that was a slip. It seems to me that if this clause makes provision for people who are earning it does not concern those who are unemployed. In that case can I ask my noble and learned friend what proportion of people who fall into debt are in full-time employment? That would be an interesting figure to know. I should also like to know whether he feels that this is as complicated and difficult for people to understand as it seems to me.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to support all those who have spoken in support of this amendment, which I consider is extremely important. I agree with the other non-lawyers about the complexity of the matter. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was boasting when she said that she understood two or three pages. That is why I was laughing. I understood the general impression of the Bill, as did no doubt the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson.
I start with the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at Second Reading, when he said (at col. 486) that more debtors are unable rather than unwilling to pay the debt outright. This is the point at which we should start—good faith.
From the heights of the legal contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, perhaps I may discuss my experience with regard to debts in my part of the world, particularly when I was in another place. There are many people on very low incomes. I envy them—not because they are on low incomes—for the sheer management of their finances. One does not necessarily have to be in employment to be able to pay some of one's debts. It is quite remarkable how many working-class families with appallingly low incomes are able to organise their finances.
There are three basic reasons for people getting into debt in the areas about which I am speaking and which I know best. That is why this new clause, or something like it, is required. The first factor is rent. Because frequently the DHSS is late in notifying the local authority that the rent is being paid, there is a build-up of rent arrears as a result. The planning of finances is
346
made very difficult. It is even more difficult if it is private accommodation. A single individual who lets only two or three houses could be in very great difficulties if the money does not come through from the social security to the local council to pay the rent. That is another problem that arises.
There is also a problem that people tend to forget. Nowadays when a teenager reaches 16 with regard to rent he becomes a lodger. They are due to pay some of the rent. In a family that can cause great difficulties. The parents get into debt. However, possibly the biggest single and absolutely necessary expenditure of most families after rent, particularly in parts of Scotland and at this time of year, are the gas and electricity bills. I know that the gas and electricity boards are supposed to adhere to a code of practice. But my experience is that it is not always too closely observed. Far too frequently electricity supplies are cut off. I am led to believe that the electricity board also demands something like 25 per cent. of any debt due up front, right away, before it will even discuss the payment of the debt that is owing. To pay off the debt could amount to up to £25 per week, plus the current bills, if the local electricity board has agreed to fit a prepayment meter, which is what is usually done.
There is another group of reasons why families get into debt—door—to-door credit catalogue sales, Provident or shopping cheques. I am not suggesting that there is not a great need for and a great service provided by the organisations which sell door to door. Many of them have been going for generations as a part of the working-class life. All over Britain they are essential for the proper management of very meagre incomes and have been so for a very long time. However, I am afraid that there is another side to it. One has over-eager and sometimes unscrupulous salesmen. Some heart-rending tales are told of people being allowed up to £1,000 credit when they are obviously not able to meet the payment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who spoke about the work of the social workers and the Citizens' Advice Bureau. In many cases the bureaux are doing what we should like this new clause to be able to do. They try to gather all the debts together and to make arrangements with those who are owed money and also for the collection of the money. People are sometimes amazed at the total of the debt when it is added up. They have never actually added up the total debt. The first time that they have appreciated the amount is when the social worker or the CAB goes through all the debts with them. Sometimes a staggering figure is reached. They are at least able to say to those who are owed the money, "If you want a chance to be repaid, the right way is to take your turn, give me some time and we shall pay you every week, month or every so often a set amount of money so that the debt can be cleared".
I have explained in perhaps a rather pragmatic way the way in which people on low incomes view the situation. I agree that very few of them are likely to have read this new clause. However, I am sure that the spirit of the clause is right. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate must have sensed the general feeling in the Committee today. Most of those present agree that something like the amendment in

347
the name of my friend Lord Morton of Shuna and myself would be most acceptable.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Perhaps I may detain the Committe for one moment to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She said that she was surprised I had supported this amendment as though she was saying, in the blunt way we Scots have in personal disputes, that she did not think I was quite that daft.
I quite acknowledge that it is a matter of judgment and it is quite a difficult matter of judgment. My initial judgment tended to be against it. However, I came to the conclusion that I had not looked at the matter in sufficient depth. When I had considered everything in the report, and all the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I came to the firm conclusion that it is a matter of judgment. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not going to accept this, I hope that he can give us the kind of detail for which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, asked in order to convince us that as a matter of judgment we should vote against the amendment. Unless he does so I think that he will have failed to discharge the onus which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, placed upon him in presenting the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I believe, as has already been said, that this matter is not one of party politics, and I would accept that at the very outset. The Government recognise the general desirability of attempting to find ways of dealing with the problems of multiple indebtedness. However, I wish to make it clear that perhaps in certain comments that have been made today—I am thinking in particular of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said—we are straying into a different territory and that is the question of consumer credit restriction. We are not dealing with that today.
Secondly, we are dealing with the question of multiple indebtedness. I am not suggesting that, for instance, some of the remarks about arrears of rent may not be relevant, but if that is the only debt, we are not into the realm of multiple indebtedness.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made a very important point, to which I shall return later, that pragmatic voluntary arrangements can be made without any reference to statute and can operate extremely well. So far as I am able, I shall try to assist the Committee to show the main features of the commission's recommended scheme. I do not dispute that it is a complex scheme and, as I shall subsequently say, that is a matter of criticism. As I understand it, and as my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, it starts off as a voluntary scheme. For the reasons that my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, that is because the commission did not wish to be involved in a scheme which concerned compulsory means testing outside the system or process of sequestration. I think that Members of the Committee will fully understand that general principle. It would allow the debtor an extension of time to pay his debts in reasonable instalments over three and possibly five years. The
348
debtor's compliance would be supervised by an administrator, who would normally be the sheriff clerk.
I think it is important to bear the second point in mind because one is dealing with an issue of balance between creditors and debtors. Creditors present and future would be precluded from taking diligence, or otherwise seeking sequestration, during the period of the operation of the scheme. That is an important factor to bear in mind so that even a future creditor would be barred from pursuing his claim if such a scheme were to be effective.
Thirdly, creditors' claims would rank rateably, and they would not be entitled to secure any preferences which they might have under the contract between the individual creditor and debtor. Fourthly, the sheriff would be able to order deductions from the debtor's earnings to be paid to the administrator and disbursed by him to the creditors. Fifthly, the payment of debts in full, or by a composition of less than 100 pence in the pound, would be premitted and the debtor would be discharged only if he complied with the scheme. On the other hand, if he defaulted the scheme would come to an end. Sixthly, there would be no vesting of assets in a trust deed for creditors; the debtor might realise specific assets to pay off the sum of indebtedness.
That is a very brief outline of the scheme. As I retail it I believe that the Committee will see that it is not a simple scheme. It is in fact rather complicated, involving as it does the effect not only on those who are creditors at the time of the scheme coming into operation, but it also affects the rights of those who subsequently, in contracting with the individual, become his creditors, and they are therefore cut off from what would otherwise be their legal rights.
I believe it was suggested that there was no other way to deal with the question of multiple debts. I should remind Members of the Committee that there is the voluntary trust deed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, will be aware of that, as certainly will be the noble Lord opposite. It is the most common method of resolving personal insolvency in Scotland, although I accept that for any voluntary trust deed form of composition to be entered into there must be some question of assets.
The scheme also requires that there should be some assets available because, although it is perfectly true that loss of employment per se may not exclude a person, the person who volunteers for the scheme must be likely to be able to produce £600 in, I believe, three years. The problems of doing so, in prospect, obviously have an effect on those who would benefit from the scheme.
Since the Scottish Law Commission's report has been quoted perhaps I may remind the Committee of what the Scottish Law Commission said at paragraph 2.125:
"Although the research conducted for this report suggests that multiple debt problems may be less common than might be supposed (inasmuch as there appear to be relatively few cases in which two or more debts of a multiple debtor reached the diligence stage simultaneously), we think the problems are sufficiently acute to call for legislative intervention".
They go on:
"In Chapter 4, therefore, we recommend the introduction in Scots law"—

349
and I underline these words—
"of a new insolvency process designed particularly for wage and salary earners and small traders in multiple debt, to be called a debt arrangement scheme".
I draw the attention of the Committee to the words "a new insolvency process". This is not a new insolvency process but it cuts down the rights of creditors in a way which would not be done if it were an insolvency process.
When I received the report from the Scottish Law Commission, I arranged for public views to be obtained on their recommendations. The Scottish Law Commission had already done so and I believe that my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out that, at the time they issued their consultative memorandum, there had been a mixed response on consultation. That appears in the same paragraph. The consultation paper which was put out on my behalf noted the fact that when the commission sought views on their own provisional proposals there had been such a mixed reaction. Of course despite the possible difficulties the commission recorded the opinion to which the noble Lord opposite has referred with regard to the provision in principle:
"for the orderly and regular payment of debts outside bankruptcy proceedings"
as being available to:
"multiple debtors, however few, who genuinely wish to meet their creditors' claims and have the means to do so within a reasonable time".
Bearing in mind that this is a voluntary scheme, one might, say that if they can volunteer for one form of arrangement, they will be able to volunteer for other arrangements, which is presently the case for any debtor.
There was a similar mixed reaction in responses to my consultation paper. For instance, the Law Society of Scotland expressed concern that a debt arrangement scheme should be so similar to bankruptcy, and they considered that careful thought should be given before any additional informal type of bankruptcy proceeding was introduced, as there may be no real need for any such new alternative procedure. I believe that to be an important comment, particularly in view of the way in which the Scottish Law Commission has proceeded to put the matter forward.
From a different standpoint the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux thought that the debt arrangement scheme procedure would be advantageous in that it would examine the debtor's ability to pay in the light of his other commitments but they noted that the least complex schemes are often the easiest to administer and understand and the most cost-effective in terms of both finance and time. The difficulty is that this cannot be said to be the kind of scheme which they had in mind. The Scottish Consumer Council supported in principle the introduction of debt arrangement schemes but they too thought that the detailed provisions envisaged complicated conditions attached to eligibility, complicated procedures to set up the scheme and a cumbersome method of operation. They thought that the schemes would be difficult for debtors and creditors to understand and expensive to operate. That is a very fair and important criticism to bear in mind.
350
Obviously, one question in particular which the Government had to consider was whether the proposed procedure would benefit a sufficient number of debtors to justify the not inconsiderable expense in administering debt arrangement schemes. The proposed procedure was intended to assist a relatively small sector of debtors. These are persons with several debts at an advanced stage in the recovery process. While there is a small but significant level of multiple debt this as I have already referred to in the Scottish Law Commission's report, is perhaps less common than might be supposed, because as I have already indicated there are relatively few cases in which two or more debts reach the diligence stage simultaneously. That means that in normal circumstances the debts are paid off or otherwise discharged in sequence no doubt but without at the end of the day requiring to go to the diligence stage simultaneously.
It has also to be noted that debt arrangement schemes as proposed by the commission were designed particularly for wage and salary earners and small traders. I should like to observe—and this was a matter that the revenue departments pointed out—that the protection from diligence which was inherent in this scheme would allow such traders to carry on business, possibly both to the detriment of themselves and particularly their suppliers and customers. This is so for reasons which I think the Committee can readily understand because the suppliers and customers would be the future creditors and lose their rights to use the legal steps which would otherwise be open to them during the currency of the scheme.
There are similar schemes elsewhere. Reference was made to England and the use of administration orders, and also to the Cork report. At the end of the day that part of the Cork report was not taken into the insolvency legislation. That is one point. A recent study prepared in connection with the Civil Justice Review in England and Wales investigated administration orders which were granted. The findings showed that one year after the orders had been made over half of the debtors had paid more than 10 per cent. of their debt but,—and this is an important statistic—in 40 per cent. of the cases there was evidence of default. The Committee will observe that under this arrangement immediately there is default the scheme will come to an end. In the first year there should then be 40 per cent. of those who had volunteered for the scheme, for whom the scheme would come to an end. That fact is important when considering the issue of the overall need to bring in the scheme. These findings also highlighted the scale of the repayment problem with large total debts and relatively small repayments over long periods and the limited success in obtaining recovery of the debts. In this connection it has to be noted that the commission's recommended debt arrangement schemes are voluntary and their success—with payments for a period which could be up to five years—would be conditional on a fairly high degree of self—discipline on the part of the debtor.
A further point which I took into account (although at the end of the day it was merely a balancing factor because it seemed that these comments were more against than in favour of the scheme) was that there were resource implications. I am not going to claim

351
that they were so immense that that in itself would have precluded it, but this was a further matter to be considered because, on that view, I was not convinced that it would be justifiable to accept the commission's recommendation that such schemes should be introduced. These schemes are only set up at a fairly late stage in a creditor's indebtedness and only if he volunteers to do so.
It appears from what has been said in Committee that the problem we are dealing with—namely, multiple indebtedness—is one which should be tackled at a much earlier stage. I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this matter. But that is the time when establishing communication between the debtor and the creditors and making a realistic disposal of what the debtor has available can secure the best way of dealing with indebtedness.
Debt counselling is not within the scope of the present Bill. Indeed, I have to add that it is not within my ministerial responsibilities—whatever else may be! I know that there are interesting developments in Scotland with regard to the encouragement of such counselling. The Birmingham scheme, which has been noted, is one which I have no doubt was being followed carefully by bodies north of the Border.
Informal debt counselling might well prove to be most useful at the earlier stage of a debtor's indebtedness. I shall watch with interest developments in that regard in Scotland. I apologise for having taken time because I recognise that this is a most important issue. For all the reasons I have set out, I am not satisfied that a scheme of such complexity would be properly understood. The voluntary nature of the scheme makes it difficult to assess the degree of success it will have. The fact that it involves considerable restraint upon creditors' rights in a way which would have to be looked at very carefully, plus the fact that, at the end of the day, there is very likely to be a substantial default which would bring the scheme to an end long before it succeeded in its purpose, mean that I cannot recommend that these amendments that the noble Lord opposite has proposed, and in particular this amendment, should be accepted. The Government were careful to consult further on the matter before they came to the conclusion that they did, but I hope I have said anough to indicate that we took this matter seriously before we reached the decision that this should not be included within this Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am abliged to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. It is pleasant on a Scottish legal Bill for a change to have something which is not just a discussion between the noble and learned Lord opposite and myself. I am obliged for the kind words and support form the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and for the support for counseling which I think I raised at Second Reading.
On the Birmingham matter, no doubt the noble and learned Lord opposite will reallise that in Birmingham this is being run by the local authority, and there may
352
be resource implications if it is to come into local authorities in Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised the complexity of this part of the Bill, but it is no more complex than the rest of the Bill if one gets into the arrestment and the definitions we get there. It is difficult for a layman to understand what is being talked about. It is even difficult for a lawyer.
There is of course the voluntary nature of this arrangement. It has to be voluntary. The difference between the debt arrangement scheme as proposed by the Scottish Law Commission and this amendment is that it is voluntary on the part of the debtor. The present voluntary arrangements are, in a sense, voluntary on the part of the creditor, because there is no purpose in the voluntary trust deed or the other arrangements that may be made at present unless all creditors join in. One creditor can say, "No, I will not agree", and go ahead and use diligence, and that throws the whole voluntary arrangement out. Under the debt arrangement scheme, if the debtor entered into it, all the creditors would have to agree up until the point of default.
On statistics the noble and learned Lord quoted paragraph 2.125, and perhaps there is a difference in the statistics I quoted. He quoted the few cases in which two or more debts reached the diligence stage simultaneously. There may be reasons for that such as that creditors sometimes give up. Certainly the other statistics I quoted suggested that this is a common problem; that in three-quarters of the cases where decree for debt is granted there are other debtors who have other debts which have to be met.
I do not think that I can go any further into this save to say there are obviously two views. The Law Commission was firmly of the opinion that this was necessary. That also appeared to be the view of the Cork Report for England and Wales—although the Government did not accept that—and I think that the appropriate course is for me to press this matter and seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Denington, B.

Kennet, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Lockwood, B.

Foot, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

353

Mishcon, L.

Stallard, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rhodes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winstanley, L.

Seear, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Serota, B.

Ypres, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Knollys, V.

Aldenham, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Aldington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ampthill, L.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mar, C.

Bessborough, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Birdwood, L.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Brightman, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moran, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Burton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cathcart, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

Coleraine, L.

Cox, B.

Porritt, L.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Cranbrook, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cromartie, E.

Reay, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Richardson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gainford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Terrington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L,

Thorneycroft, L.

Hankey, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harvington, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hayter, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vickers, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Ilchester, E.

Windlesham, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 35 not moved.]
5.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Private Rented Housing
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about private rented housing that has been made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.
"The Government are very keen to encourage the provision of private housing for letting by a greater variety of agencies than at present and to increase freedom of choice for people wishing to rent their homes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I propose, therefore, to give local authorities an explicit statutory power to provide financial assistance to the private sector, including housing associations, in order to assist in the provision of rented housing using private sources of finance. We envisage that financial assistance might be particularly appropriate for the support of schemes involving assured tenancies. We propose to include the necessary provisions in the Local Government Bill this Session.
"Local authorities will be able to use these powers to keep the rents of new housing developments by the private sector to levels which prospective tenants can be expected to afford. The purpose is also to give further encouragement to the introduction of private finance into the provision of such housing. I hope that authorities and others concerned will make the maximum use of these powers to encourage the development of schemes by responsible landlords for rented housing, particularly in areas where the needs are greatest.
"It is important, however, that such financial assistance should not be used simply to feather-bed private sector provision by removing all risk from it and converting it into a concealed form of private sector lending to the public sector. The legislation we are proposing will, therefore, require that such financial assistance should be provided only with our consent. The Government expect individual local authorities to contain the cost of financial assistance within their existing programmes. We envisage that assistance would normally take the form of annual grants to bridge the gap between financing the costs of a development and the expected rental income, but other forms of assistance will be covered by our proposals.
"There are four key matters on which we would normally wish to be satisfied before giving consent: first, the commercial risk of the development should rest substantially with the private sector and, in particular, the local authority's commitment should

355
not be an open—ended one to meet any differences that might arise between costs and income; second, the level of financial assistance should not exceed in amount or value 30 per cent. of the overall cost of the scheme; third, the activity of managing and maintaining the houses concerned should be carried out by the private sector participant and not by the authority offering financial assistance; fourth, if local authority land is involved, the land should be sold freehold or on a lease of not less than 99 years.
"Other factors that we might also wish to take into account in deciding to give or withhold consent are the overall costs of a scheme, the proposed tenure mix, whether the tenants would have the right to buy, rights given to the authority to nominate tenants, the likely proportion of tenants receiving housing benefit and the proposed rent levels.
"Some authorities are already planning to assist the provision of housing by private sector landlords using certain existing powers. It is important that such schemes should be developed in accordance with the criteria I have indicated. We are, therefore, proposing that the Local Government Bill should include a provision that, with effect from midnight tonight, local authorities shall not, without our consent, give financial assistance to or for the benefit of other persons, including registered housing associations, or enter into agreements to give such assistance in connection with the acquisition, construction, conversion, rehabilitation, improvement, maintenance or management of accommodation for letting or licensing, including hostels and lodging houses. We do not, however, propose that consent should be required with respect to assistance which is expressly required by an obligation imposed by an agreement made on or before today. Financial assistance given without our consent after today will be declared to be unlawful and transactions relating to financial assistance entered into without our consent after today will be declared void. Financial assistance for these purposes includes grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, subscribing for share or loan capital, and the provision of benefits through the transfer of land or other property, the provision of goods services or facilities, the carrying out of works, and the making of other payments.
"We propose to initiate consultations immediately on the details of our proposals. I am placing in the Library copies of a document which sets out the proposals fully and which explains certain exemptions we propose to make from the requirements for consent. Copies of the document and of this statement are today being sent to all local authorities and to the local authority associations. Copies are also being sent to the Housing Corporation, the National Federation of Housing Associations and other interested parties. Meanwhile I would advise any local authorities and others who are actively contemplating schemes to seek the guidance of my department or the Welsh Office."
That concludes the Statement, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Minister in another place. I welcome the fact that the Minister has mentioned in the Statement that there will be full consultation with the people involved before the Bill comes before the other place and your Lordships' House.
May I put one or two pertinent questions to the Minister? Is the scheme designed to encourage local authorities to participate in such activities or is it designed to stop a repeat of the Sheffield United Kingdom housing scheme? Am I to take it from the Statement that the Sheffield City Council, which has by-passed the normal procedures in the scheme I have just mentioned, will still be allowed to go ahead with that scheme? As I understand, it caters for up to 2,000 houses in conjunction with a deal that it has done with one of the national building societies outside the normal remit. Will the Sheffield scheme be allowed to go ahead, bearing in mind the fact that, if I have understood the Minister correctly, the provisions take effect from midnight tonight and nobody can proceed with a scheme without the consent of the Secretary of State?
It appears from the Statement that there will be no new government money to support any such schemes. Does that not mean that there will be very few of these schemes starting? Most of the local authorities in the public housing sector are short of funds to do what is necessary, such as repairs. In the Statement, the Minister also said that local authorities will be expected to give up their management rights and these will be operated by the private participants. In view of that, will a local authority retain the right to nominate tenants for these properties from its own waiting list, bearing in mind that it will be expected to fund up to a maximum of 30 per cent. of the cost of a scheme?
The Minister mentioned the right to buy. If this were imposed as a diktat, as in the rest of the public sector, would it not be a complete discouragement to the public sector, which would be expected to participate, if the Government were to impose on this sector a mandatory right to buy for tenants taking these houses?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we, too, on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that important Statement. He will accept that it is very complex, as indeed is the document to which he referred which has been placed in the Library. He will also accept that we shall wish to study that document and the Statement more carefully before we can finalise our views on this whole matter. But in general we welcome the Statement because it appears to signal two things. First, it appears that the Government now accept that the principal need so far as housing is concerned is for houses to rent. Secondly, it appears to signal the fact that the Government recognise that it is no longer acceptable for all their efforts to be restricted to increasing the percentage of owner-occupiers, which hitherto has seemed to be the Government's single and only housing policy.
With regard to the new arrangements, the Statement makes clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, that the axe falls tonight. The Statement says,

357
"from midnight tonight, local authorities shall not, without our consent, give financial assistance to or for the benefit of other persons, including registered housing associations",
etc. I should merely like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm that consent will not be unreasonably withheld. I know that more is said about consent in the Statement.
Going on from that, the Statement makes clear that consent will not be required for schemes already in the pipeline. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, should like the Minister to confirm that the exciting and interesting scheme already afoot in Sheffield will not be frustrated by the new arrangements.
With regard to the provision of extra finance, is it not possible that, were the 20 per cent. rule regarding local authority use of funds received from the sale of council houses to be relaxed, it might well be that local authorities would be in a very much better position to fund arrangements of this kind than they perhaps now are?
While this new scheme may very well bring forward more homes—that certainly is to be warmly welcomed and, I am sure, will be warmly welcomed by noble Lords in all parts of the House—it nevertheless remains a fact that many of the people who seek those homes to rent will have difficulty in paying the rent? That is inevitable.
We have an elaborate system of support schemes, housing benefit and so on, which is so bureaucratic and complex that it is not working fully. I should like to ask the Minister again about the possibility of doing away with all those elaborate schemes and focusing help in a single benefit paid as of right, in the same way as child benefit is paid as of right and retirement pension is paid to all as of right, but with the provision that through the tax scheme money can be creamed off by the Government where it is not needed. A system of that kind would, I am quite sure, be immensely valuable.
The Government mention that all these documents will be sent to the various bodies which he named and interested parties but the noble Lord did not mention specifically the building societies in that connection. I think many of us hope that with the new freedom which the building societies now enjoy they will be encouraged to take part in schemes of this kind. I should like the noble Lord, if he can, to confirm that the Government are consulting the building societies individually, or perhaps with the Building Societies Association, on participation in schemes such as this.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome—in one case generous and in the other, from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, slightly more cautious—of the Statement which I have just repeated. This Statement is good news for local authorities, but more importantly it is good news for prospective tenants of rented accommodation. The Housing Corporation already has powers to make grants of up to 30 per cent. of the costs of rental housing schemes. Local authority associations have sought similar powers and we are now proposing to give them to them. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, welcomed the consultation exercise which surrounds this proposal of my right honourable and honourable
358
friends, and I can confirm that the financial institutions are also being sent copies of the consultation paper.
The position in Sheffield is rather curious. There are in fact two schemes going on in Sheffield. I have details of one, which is as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, explained, and I understand that this is signed, sealed and delivered and therefore will not be caught by the Statement. As to the second scheme, it will depend entirely on what the terms and conditions are. But assuming that they follow the criteria that I have outlined in the Statement, there is absolutely no reason why it should not go ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, noted that the local authorities were not to have management of the schemes. It is quite natural that the risks and rewards, as it were, should go the principal provider of the money. He also asked about nomination rights. The retention of nomination rights is simply one of the factors to be considered and obviously we have no objection in principle. But I have no doubt that this is the sort of comment that will be made in the responses to the consultation paper. I appreciate especially that some of the tortuous, legally framed phrases and clauses that I read out from the Statement need very careful study indeed, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on that.
As to the use of capital receipts and the 20 per cent. restriction, many of these schemes are likely to be in those areas that we discussed at length in our debate on the inner cities on Monday, and these are areas where they have very limited capital receipts anyway. But on the general point I do not think it serves the interests of either the noble Lord or the House to repeat my endless arguments on the use of capital receipts.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what will happen to applications for consent between the axe falling and the conclusion of the consulation period and how long is that likely to be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the consultation period is two months. The Statement made it quite clear that any contract entered into after midnight tonight would be caught, and of course when the Bill gets onto the statute book it will be the legislative base of that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how much will this cost?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the Statement said, it is intended that this money shall be found from within existing local authority funds. But the whole point about this is rather like the success of the urban development corporations in that it gives the local authorities the opportunity to use enormous leverage and as a result get more houses for less money.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I found the Minister's Statement very interesting and I shall be reading what he has said. I wish to take up only two points. I believe I am correct in saying that he said that the Government will not give more than 30 per cent. grant. Is that correct? I gather that it is not correct. I am very glad to know it. I am deeply involved in one

359
housing association which is trying very hard to get private money into rented housing. The Government have offered a 30 per cent. grant. However, it is simply not enough. We have done exercises on this matter, and we are not the only housing association to do such exercises.
The role of housing associations is not to provide high-cost rented housing. They may attain perhaps 5 per cent. above fair rent or perhaps a bit more than that. But a 30 per cent. grant, as we have all found from the studies, is not enough to provide housing for the people whom housing associations feel they are in this field to help. I am sure that that applies to local authorities as well.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at the actual level at which grants are pitched. We all want to try to make this scheme succeed. Rents may be above fair rent prices, but not far above them; otherwise it will kill the scheme. I think that that is an important point.
My other point is that the Minister says that the management shall be private. I do not know whether that will help the scheme. I should have thought that financial institutions would not be interested in taking on management. That is not their function; they are not skilled in management, while housing associations are. I should have thought that such institutions would very much like to be in partnerships with housing associations which would undertake management for them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government regard housing associations as part of the private sector. Perhaps that is part of the answer to the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. I shook my head when the noble Baroness said that the Government were providing 30 per cent. grant. In fact, in this particular instance it is the local authorities who will be providing the 30 per cent. grant. These sorts of schemes are not yet properly off the ground and I think it is too early to say whether the 30/70 per cent. mix is right or whether it ought to be altered.
I have also heard, out and about in the country, exactly the same thoughts which the noble Baroness has just voiced. Obviously we shall take those considerations on board.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise. I had not quite finished my question to my noble friend, and I gave way to the noble Baroness. The Minister did his best to answer the question but I should like to know the actual amount of money involved and also whether the rents will be subject to rent control or will be free rents. As my noble friend will have seen in several articles in the more market-oriented papers, the way to provide the largest amount of housing is to deregulate the housing market, and not to work on a system which was designed to stop soldiers from the 1914 war being evicted from their houses.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know about the 1914 war, because the Housing Acts which my noble friends normally complain of were those passed by a more recent Labour Government. Be that as it may, the amount of money involved is impossible to
360
predict because it depends entirely on how much use local authorities actually make of these schemes. However, what I have said is that this is constrained, in a sense, by the normal local authority budgetary arrangements.
So far as freeing rents is concerned, the objective is to increase our very successful policy of assured tenancies, which incidentally was agreed between parties.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has dealt with the questions. However, I must correct him historically. He referred to the fact that this side of the House is always concerned and annoyed as regards housing Acts passed by the last Labour Government. Perhaps I ought to say that the biggest villain of the piece is in fact the 1957 Housing Act, which I think was passed when Mr. Powell was the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have difficulty enough with the present and, clearly, if I am wrong on my history, I apologise.

Debtors (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 16 [Articles exempt from poinding]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which is designed to increase the value of the protected tools of the trade of the debtor from a figure of £500 as shown in the Bill to a figure of £1,000. It is obviously essential that the debtor should have protection of equipment by which he can earn money. I suggest, and I have the support of the Scottish Consumer Council, that the figure of £500 is too low. Many tradesmen have tools which have a value higher than that which is required for their work. One thinks of plumbers, electricians and certain others who will have a considerable number of tools which they need. If the tools are sold, that adds to the burden.
It has also been suggested to me that some people carrying on businesses using computer hardware would be particularly hard hit if the level of £500 were to be left in the Bill. I think the purpose of the provision is entirely clear and that there is no dispute in the Committee that there should be this sort of protection. All I suggest is that the level at the moment is too low. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: This limit was recommended by the Scottish Law Commission following comments on their Consultative Memorandum No. 48 published in October 1980. I think the noble Lord opposite will know that that memorandum proposed a limit of £250. I accept that that was in 1980. Nevertheless, the report put forward the figure of £500. I believe that report was published

361
in 1985. I may say that similar monetary limits are found in the clause dealing with educational material and also in paragraph I of Schedule 5 dealing with summary warrant poindings.
In considering the commission's recommendations, which, as I have said, were based on wide consultation, the Government agreed that the Bill should contain a monetary limit and that the figure suggested by the commission was the right level. This is on the basis that this exemption is considered to be mainly intended for debtors of modest income whose tools of trade are of relatively small value.
The setting of any monetary limit must, as your Lordships will appreciate, contain a certain arbitrary element, and it is right that the monetary limit should reflect current circumstances and requirements. That is the reason why the Bill confers power on the Lord Advocate to vary the amount by regulations. The existence of that power will enable the Lord Advocate to keep the situation under review and to act if it becomes apparent that the monetary limit requires to be changed to reflect different circumstances. If the amendment were accepted there would be a curious result. The exemption in ordinary poindings would have a limit of £1,000 on aggregate value while the exemption for summary warrant poindings would remain at £500.
With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the matter and withdraw the amendment. I cannot recommend it to the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I was fully aware that if this amendment were accepted, it would be necessary to amend Schedule 5 also. The limit in Clause 16(1)(d) for educational requirements, if I may put it that way, is a rather different figure and possibly £500 for educational requirements is reasonable; but for tools of the trade I suggest that this figure is too low. However, it is not a matter on which I wish to divide the Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("(g) all articles in a house, caravan, houseboat or other structure which is the only or principal residence of the debtor.")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 38, and on this occasion I have managed to put forward an amendment to deal with Schedule 5 at the same time.
This amendment deals with a matter about which I spoke at Second Reading. It excludes household articles totally so that a person's household goods would not be subject to the warrant sale procedure. At paragraph 2.64 of the Scottish Law Commission's report it is made quite clear that inability to pay, rather than mere unwillingness to pay, is the reason for this difficulty. The report refers to various surveys. The official one, if I may refer to the census return in that way, says that,
362
"While 5% of men in Scotland were unemployed and actively seeking work, among debtors interviewed the proportion unemployed and actively seeking work was as high as 20%.
These figures are from back in time. The number of men in Scotland unemployed and actively seeking work now is rather higher than 5 per cent. The report continues:
"only 45% of debtors interviewed were in full-time employment at the time court action started. It was also found that 41% of debtors were living in households where the main source of income was likely to be state benefits since neither they nor their spouses (if any) were in employment. Nearly half the debtors who were unemployed or temporarily sick had been out of work or away from work for at least six months and over three-quarters for over three months. A clear picture emerged of debtors and their spouses as people on low incomes: over a third of debtors had a weekly income of not more than £30,"—
these are, of course, 1978 figures—
"well below the national average. Ability to pay is clearly also affected by factors such as household size, the number of dependent children."
and so on. So it is quite clear—and with rising unemployment since then the position must have become worse—that in general the vast majority of warrant sales involve very deprived and destitute people. It is wholly wrong that this range of people should have their household goods subjected to the procedure of a warrant sale. I welcome, as I welcomed at an earlier stage, the fact that the Bill abolishes the disastrous and demeaning habit of the sales taking place in the debtor's house. So far, so good, But these debtors tend to be at the very lowest end of income and if a sale of their household goods takes place they are not able to retrieve the situation.
It might be suggested that there will be the occasional wealthy person who has goods of considerable value in his house. When somebody has thousands of pounds of antiques in his house there is nothing to stop the creditor going to sequestration, which might well be the more appropriate course for that type of debt and absolute refusal to pay. But for the more general case of the unemployed, sick or disabled person, I suggest that the warrant sale of household goods should be abolished. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I read what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said at Second Reading. He said that when we had gone through the list of what was excluded,
"There is not much left".— Official Report, 13/1/87; col. 493.]
I think I am right in saying that those were his actual words. There is a fundamental principle here on which we may differ. I refer to the whole question of deterrence. I shall not go into other deterrents, but the figures that were given at Second Reading show that the deterrent of having to go through a warrant sale, albeit now, thank goodness, modified to far more reasonable arrangements than had been the case in the past, has a good effect in that we get down to a very small number of cases at the end of the day.
I shall not pursue the route of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who referred to people having expensive things in their houses. There are other methods of dealing with that. While I entirely support the exclusions that have been put into the Bill, I wonder whether the deterrent effect of the end of the road and a warrant sale should be written out of the Bill.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to make a brief point on deterrence. I can see the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that in the last resort one should be able to sell things to reclaim debt, although it has been pointed out just how humiliating that can be. But there is another way of looking at the matter, especially in certain parts of Scotland. If there was no warrant sale, in practically all cases credit would tend to dry up. In other words, part of the reason for people, especially less scrupulous people, lending money is that they know that at the end of the day they can have a warrant sale or threaten the shame of a warrant sale to recover the debt. This could perhaps disastrously force people to go to moneylenders to get the money, leading to another chain of deprivation. There are other quite valid reasons for not having warrant sales. It could get rid of a great deal of the debt that has accrued because unscrupulous people lend money on the basis of the warrant sale. That is another way of looking at the matter.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I listened with interest to what has been said on this matter in different parts of the Committee. Perhaps I may take up the issue of credit with which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just dealt. As I made plain in response to an earlier debate, we are not dealing with that issue this evening: nor do I understand it to be suggested that warrant sales should not remain as a last resort.
It is important to bear in mind how this clause is framed. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that in the part of the clause to which this amendment is directed we are dealing with articles belonging to a debtor which shall be exempt from poinding. There is nothing stated as to where these articles are to be. They may be found elsewhere than in a dwelling house.
Subsection (2) lists the articles that are to be exempt from poinding,
"if they are at the time of the poinding in a dwelling house"—
and the Committee should then observe what follows,
"and are reasonably required for the use in the dwelling house of the person residing there or a member of his household".
Thereafter are set out all the articles that one hopes would be found even in a relatively poor household. It may be that those items go beyond that. For example, there might not be one refrigerator. Nevertheless, all these items are exempt from poinding because they are thought to be articles which are reasonably required for the householder's use.
To take the same principle into Clause 1 would be to drive a coach and horses through the whole poinding process because it would mean that all articles found in the house would be exempt, whoever the poinding is being executed against. It would not be difficult to think of situations in which it would be a nonsense to say that just because a person has some valuable Louis XV furniture or Canalettos, or whatever there may be on the walls of his dwelling house, he should be freed from the poinding process and that his creditor should go so far as to sequestrate him in order to force him to pay his debts. That is not a proper use of this sequestration process.
I hope that the noble Lord opposite will reconsider what this amendment imports. I also have to say that
364
this is a very technical matter. In any event, it would be impossible to accept the provisions of this amendment which sit ill with the definition of "dwelling house" found in Clause 45. For all those reasons, I must suggest to the Committee that this amendment should be resisted.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was speaking also to Amendment No. 38. Is that right?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 37 and 88.
>Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I beg the Committee's pardon.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Even when one of my amendments is accepted in principle, I am accustomed to the fact that there may be something wrong with its drafting. I fully accept that that is a necessary consequence. However, the purpose of the amendment is to drive a coach and horses through the Bill in the sense that the amendment intends to exclude poinding and warrant sales of household goods and articles belonging to the debtor.
The vast majority of debtors exist in areas of low income, in housing schemes in inner city areas. I merely say that if their walls are covered with Canalettos and they are sitting on Louis XV chairs, and so on, they are very ill-advised or they are paying a high insurance premium. That is not the position of the average debtor, as is shown in the Law Commission's report.
This is a matter of principle. I accept that if the principle is accepted there will be a considerable change in this part of the Bill but I think it is appropriate to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Aylestone, L.

Nicol, B.

Birk, B.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Ezra, L.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ypres, E.

365

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hesketh, L.

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aldenham, L.

Killearn, L.

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Knollys, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brightman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Burton, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Portland, D.

Cromartie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Erroll, E.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hayter, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 23, leave out ("(including not more than one refrigerator)") and insert ("or for storing such equipment or utensils").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to alter the list that appears in subsection (2) of this clause which, as I said at Second Reading, is fairly extensive. I look forward to the intervention that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, intends to make. What worries me particularly is subsection (k) which covers:
"furniture, equipment or utensils used for cooking, storing or eating food (including not more than one refrigerator)".
The reference to the refrigerator comes straight out of the Law Commission's report, but one can study both volumes of the report without finding any reason why it was so against debtors having more than one refrigerator.
I should have thought that a freezer is a refrigerator. It is also, as is a refrigerator, a piece of equipment—I do not think it would be fair to describe it as "furniture"—that is used for storing food. It appears to me that in certain areas of Scotland, especially the country areas and the islands where there is difficulty of access and the possibility at times of being cut off, many people reasonably require a deep freezer as an
366
essential means of keeping their stock of food. No doubt they also find it useful to have a refrigerator. As I said at Second Reading, it seems strange that if one has a combined fridge/freezer, which is something that is quite commonly advertised these days, it may be retained. But if one has two articles, one of them must go.
I should have thought that there was no need for the words in brackets. As the Committee will see, they are covered by the opening words of subsection (2), because all these articles must be "reasonably required for … use". Therefore, thinking about this imaginary debtor's house with more than one refrigerator, perhaps many more, the first decision to make is whether they are reasonably required for use. It seems to me that those words cover the situation and one does not need the words in brackets.
However it seems strange that what is not covered is the ordinary store cupboard in which people store their dishes, cutlery, pots and pans, all of which are protected articles. That is out. It is not covered by paragraph (k) or anything else. It is in an endeavour to put that matter right that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will accept this amendment. Perhaps if he just nods his head, I can sit down. I see he does not. I find it utterly and unbelievably pathetic that in an Act of the British Parliament there should be such a provision. To me it smacks of the Dickensian-Victorian attitude towards the undeserving poor: "Two refrigerators and they cannot pay their debts? How shocking!". The Government should think again.
There is a great deal in these provisions about which I wish I had spoken previously. I find the feeling behind this provision disturbing and unacceptable. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, that there is nothing in the Law Commission's report to indicate why it was suggested in the draft Bill, as I gather it was. I find it very difficult to understand why the Government thought it up and why no one scored it out.
I have sat in debtor courts at all levels for many years and I fully appreciate the interests of creditors. Frequently I had great sympathy for them, but can one really plead, in the same way as was said of the girl's baby, "It is a very small refrigerator"? Maybe we could have "at least two very small refrigerators". I think that when government thinking reaches such a stage it is better to take the provision out of the Bill altogether, and I hope that they will do that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This subsection contains a list of homely items but it attempts to list what is essential for people to retain if some of their possessions are to be taken away. I have been an under-sheriff and I have signed documents which involve this process. Before doing so, I asked precisely and in some detail what it involved for those people. Of course I wanted to know whether the essentials would remain.
I can understand that it may sound ridiculous to the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble and

367
learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, to make a distinction between a fridge-freezer and a freezer. But the truth is that a refrigerator, which may or may not have a small freezer incorporated, is an absolutely basic essential for anyone in this country today. However, it is also true to say that if one is short of money the very last thing one does is keep a freezer full of frozen food. That is a very expensive proceeding.
I think the attitude of other people to this whole process matters, besides the debtor in question. I know a family who at the moment are in trouble. They cannot get their debts paid but they have an electric organ in a corner. I think that would have been exempt under the last amendment. It has been greatly discussed as a small electric organ in the corner. I think a freezer full of food is in that category. Of course it is a nice thing to have if you can afford it, but it is expensive.
In the context of this list I feel it is perfectly reasonable to say that there should be a refrigerator but not a deep-freeze, which is a big thing you keep food in for a considerable period of time. It is expensive food to buy. This is money tied up. It is not something that fits easily into this list. Whether the legal distinction between a refrigerator and a deepfreeze is adequately made here is for the lawyers to say.
6 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I think perhaps we should like to hear the definition of where the law stands as far as a fridge-freezer is concerned.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am bound to express a certain degree of surprise at the noble Lord putting forward this amendment, particularly in view of what he sought to do in his last amendment. We are dealing here with a clause and that part of a clause which provides for articles which are to be exempt from poinding. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out. the refrigerator has now become accepted, I think, as almost standard equipment in most houses. It seems to me absolutely correct that where one is dealing with a subsection which says "equipment …used for…storing food." it should he made plain that a refrigerator, if it is to be found there, will he exempt unless it can he said that it is not reasonably required for use in the dwelling-house. It makes plain that one refrigerator, as a rule, is certainly to be so regarded.
The noble Lord accepted that the Scottish Law Commission in its draft Bill specifically included this provision. We have taken it into the Bill. There is no question of it being in some sense put in in a slightly patronising way, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, was suggesting. Far from it. The noble Lord opposite said, "Well, in certain parts of the country a freezer is necessary". I would certainly say that a freezer would fall within the definition of equipment used for storing food. If my noble friend were to ask me, "What about the fridge-freezer, that which has two parts to it;", I think I would have to say that it depends on whether it is divisible or indivisible. But at the end of the day one would expect those who are responsible for poinding to exercise a reasonable
368
view of the matter. If it appears quite plain that the deep-freeze is something which in a remote part of the country is essential and is reasonably required for the use of that dwellinghouse, then it is covered of course by the generality of this subsection.
Accordingly, I have to say that I think this is an important explanatory feature of what articles are to be regarded as exempt from poinding. If some article is taken, apart from the refrigerator, the freezer or the like, it is always open to the debtor to apply for release from the poinding of that article on the grounds of undue harshness under Clause 23. So there is still a further step open.
I think that far from being of value to those whose articles are likely to be poinded, this amendment does not make plain that the refrigerator is in a very special position apart from other equipment which can be used for storing food and to which particular attention must be paid before it can be taken from the dwelling-house. For all these reasons I must recommend to the Committee that this amendment should not be accepted.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I could ask him whether this is suggesting that if somebody has a deep freeze which he regards as essential in the country and which I do not, he cannot have a fridge? Milk cannot be put in a deep-freeze.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I am saying that under this the refrigerator would be exempt, but if in addition it can be shown that the freezer was reasonably required for use in the dwellinghouse in addition to the refrigerator, then that also may be exempt. It is simply the way in which this clause is framed. It starts by saying,
"The following articles belonging to a debtor shall be exempt".
The articles which are to be exempt are equipment used for storing food, including not more than one refrigerator. But "equipment used for storing food" may also include a deep-freeze. That is what I am saying.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I assume that the Lord Advocate appreciates that not only can you not put milk in the deep-freeze; you cannot put the champagne in it either?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I have put champagne quite successfully in the deep freeze. It has a remarkable effect; it cools it much more quickly than if it is put in the refrigerator! From their expressions, I am glad that other noble Lords have had the same experience as myself. I am not suggesting that simply because of that I can necessarily say that in my household the deepfreeze is reasonably required for use in the dwellinghouse of the person residing there or a member of his household.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall not enter into the discussion between noble and learned Lords on the cooling qualities of deep-freezes on champagne nor whether champagne would qualify as food under

369
heading (k). I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite must look at it again. But it appears to me that if a freezer is, as it obviously is, an article used for storing food, the effect of paragraph (k) as drafted is that if there are a refrigerator and a deep-freeze you must get rid of one.
Because of the way the paragraph is drafted,
"including not more than one refrigerator",
with such little engineering knowledge as I possess, I should have thought that there is no doubt that a freezer is a refrigerator. It must be; it is the same sort of equipment with a different thermostat, no doubt. The expression,
"including not more than one refrigerator",
means that one of them has to go. Therefore if you have a fridge and a freezer, whether you have the freezer stocked with food or anything else, the freezer has to go or the fridge has to go, the way this is drafted. That really cannot be so. There can be situations in the country, as I think the whole Committee has accepted, where there may be the need for a freezer full of food.
There may well be a person who while employed has bought some meat or has stored some fruit or something of that nature. Three or four months later he loses his job or becomes disabled, somebody sues him and creates a poinding. What is to happen? A deep freeze full of food has the food taken out of it and possibly sold. In such circumstances it is no use saying, "You can go to the sheriff and make a complaint." The food may have thawed by the time he gets there. The matter needs looking at again.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I do not suggest that we will not look at this matter again in view of what noble Lords have said. I think that I have set out the Government's view, which is that one refrigerator should be regarded as an article exempt from poinding. It may be that there is more than one, but if they are reasonably required for use in the dwellinghouse it could be included.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, is also a lawyer. If he is going to suggest that there could be any dubiety about the matter, I am happy to consider what is said. I hope that I have made the Government's view of this matter clear.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I think that there is a dubiety when one reads subsection (2), in full, with (k). However reasonable the freezer may be, it may have to go. I do not think that this is what the Government want and therefore they may have to look at the wording again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 28, at end insert—
("(p) tools reasonably required for household use.")
The noble Lord said: Some Members of this place who are not in the Chamber at the moment are anxious that we should proceed quickly. I understand that the amendment, although not properly drafted, is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am happy to consider this matter and come back on Report with an amendment to cover the point being made.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Invalidity, cessation and recall of poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 38, leave out ("the poinding to be void") and insert ("that to be the case").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to produce consistency of wording within subsection (1) and with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill. I can expand on that if the Committee wishes, but otherwise I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Duration of poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 18, leave out from ("above") to end of line 19 and insert—
("(i) if the application is made on the ground referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection, the poinding shall, if the date of disposal of the application is later than 14 days before the poinding is due to expire, continue to have effect until 14 days after that disposal;
(ii) in any other case, the poinding shall continue to have effect until the disposal of the application;").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to secure that poinding can continue in effect for 14 days after the sheriff has refused an application for an extension of the duration of that poinding.
The amendment follows discussions with the Law Society of Scotland. It is to secure the position of a creditor, in cases where an extension of poinding is refused, who would otherwise, as the Bill presently stands, be unable to take any further steps in his diligence even though the debtor has defaulted in the payment agreement between them. In addition, debtors would be placed at a disadvantage since creditors may not so readily enter into long-term payment agreements and then press on to do diligence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 32 [Location of sale]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 25, line 28, leave out ("any one") and insert ("all").
The noble Lord said: This clause relates to the possibility of warrant sales taking place in places, including the debtor's household, with the consent of the occupier. Subsection (6) states:
"In this section 'occupier', in relation to premises where there are 2 or more occupiers, means any one of them.".
That raises the difficulty that there may be three occupiers or a husband and wife who are not getting on. One of them agrees and the other disagrees. The amendment seeks to deal with that situation by taking out "any one" and inserting "all of them" so that if there are multiple occupiers, there must be the consent of all the occupiers if this rather unusual circumstance is to take place. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am not entirely persuaded that it is necessary to obtain the consent of all the occupiers, but I see that there is a problem over what is meant by the term "occupier". I should like to look at that matter and take account of what the noble Lord has said. With that undertaking, he may wish to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am certainly encouraged by that reply. It may be that the way to deal with the problem is to have a rather more radical revision of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Payment agreements after warrant of sale]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 28, line 25, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is to remove part of Clause 36 which on further consideration is now thought to be unnecessary, the provision not being required. Unless the Committee wishes a further explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I in no sense oppose the amendment, which I think is entirely proper. I am just taking advantage of the opportunity to say that I and those on this side of the Committee have no objection to the numerous amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord which follow. I hope that that will be of assistance in getting through the business.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [The warrant sale]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 29, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (10) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 91 and 92. These amendments are all to remedy a defect
372
in the Bill in situations where poinded goods are damaged and revalued accordingly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 29, line 35, at end insert—
("(10) Where—

(a) any damaged article has been revalued under section 20(4) of this Act on the authority of the sheriff given under section 29(2) of this Act;

(b) the damage was not caused by the fault of the debtor; and

(c) no order has been made under section 29(3) of this Act requiring a third party to consign a sum in respect of the article, or such an order has been made but has not been complied with,

the amount credited to the debtor under subsection (9) above shall be an amount equal to the original valuation and not the revaluation referred to in paragraph (a) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Certain proceedings under Part II to postpone further steps in the diligence]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("in breach of a poinding") and insert ("without consent or authority").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. These are technical amendments which make changes in the wording to achieve consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Conjoining of further poinding with original poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 34, line 43, leave out ("and 30(2)(a)(i)") and insert (", 30(2)(a)(i) and 35(2)(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to amend Clause 43(4) so as to include a further reference to Clause 35 dealing with invalidity and cessation of poindings. The effect is to separate the defects of one poinding from another poinding with which it is conjoined. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [General effect of earnings arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48:
Page 36, leave out lines 1 to 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have reconsidered this amendment. I do not propose to move it at this time because I should prefer to bring forward an amendment later to make it clear that

373
Clause 47(2) is subject to the provisions of Clause 90(2), which disapplies the requirement for a charge in cases where the diligence follows on a summary warrant. It is much easier that that reference should appear in this clause, as the effect of this amendment would otherwise have been to remove the subsection altogether. The reader of the Act would then have to go to Clause 90 before he had any hint of this difficulty.
With that explanation, the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [General effect of current maintenance arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 39, line 40, leave out ("operation") and insert ("effect")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 56. These are purely technical changes of wording. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Deduction from net earnings to be made by employer]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 40, line 34, leave out ("65A( 1A)") and insert ("65(1A)")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 60. These are technical amendments to correct a reference to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Effect of new maintenance order on current maintenance arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 42, line 31, after ("divorce") insert ("or on the granting of a declarator of nullity of marriage")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to make reference to periodic allowance payable on declarator person of nullity of marriage following the passage of the Family Law (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Failure to comply with arrestment, manner of payment and creditor's duty when arrestment ceases to have effect]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
("(5) Where an event mentioned in subsection (4) above occurs, any sum paid by an employer—")
The noble and learned Lord said: This clarifies the position on overpayments when an arrestment ends. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Priority among arrestments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 44, line 16, leave out from ("effect") to ("the") in line 18.
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 54. These amendments are necessary to ensure that employers can give creditors who have been prevented from serving an arrestment details of all the arrestments in effect against the relevant debtor's earnings and not just details of the arrestment which prevented the new creditor from executing his. This will help the sheriff clerk to set up a conjoined arrestment order if the new creditor applies for one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 44, line 20, leave out ("the first arrestment") and insert ("any other earnings arrestment or current maintenance arrestment in effect against the earnings of the same debtor payable by the same employer").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Amount recoverable under conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 46, line 18, leave out ("or current maintenance arrestment schedule").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to remove an erroneous reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 46, line 26, leave out ("operation") and insert ("effect").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 46, line 33, after ("arrestment") insert ("schedule").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 58. These are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 46, line 34, after ("arrestment") insert ("schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Relationship of conjoined arrestment order with earnings and current maintenance arrestments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 47, line 9, leave out ("such service") and insert ("the service of a copy of the conjoined arrestment order on him under section 60(7) of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to clarify a reference to "service". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Sum payable by employer under conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 48, line 37, leave out ("65A( 1A)") and insert ("65(1A)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Operation of conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 50, line 2, leave out from ("him") to end of line 5 and insert ("to the creditors whose debts are being enforced by the conjoined arrestment order in accordance with Schedule 3 to this Act or, if there are no such creditors, shall be paid to the debtor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This gives further guidance to sheriff clerks as to how to disburse sums recovered from a creditor which were wrongly paid to him under a conjoined arrestment order after some of the debts in the order have dropped out or the order itself has ceased. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Recall and variation of conjoined arrestment order]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("(4) or (6)").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I speak to Amendment No. 63. This provides that orders under Clause 66 excluding a debt for maintenance obligation from a conjoined arrestment order will come into effect seven days after their service on the employer. This brings these orders into line with orders under Clause 60(2), which makes a conjoined arrestment order, and under Clause 62(5), which adds a debt or maintenance obligation to a conjoined arrestment order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 51, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (4) or (6) above shall come into effect 7 days after a copy of the order has been served on the employer under subsection (7) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Execution and service of copies]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 53, line 25, leave out ("or copy thereon").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment removes the reference in Clause 70(3) to service of a copy of an arrestment schedule on the debtor. As failure to serve or intimate a copy of the schedule to the debtor does not render the arrestment invalid, there is no need to make specific provision for the form of such service or intimation on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 53, line 27, leave out from first ("service") to end of line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides that hand service of an arrestment schedule on the employer will be in the standard form; that is, the officer serving or intimating may be accompanied by a witness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 66:Page 53, line 32, leave out from ("the") to second ("a") in line 33 and insert ("service of an earnings arrestment schedule, a current maintenance arrestment schedule or").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 67. These amendments apply to the provisions of Clause 17(1) to service of an earnings arrestment or current maintenance arrestment schedule rather than to execution. Thus Clause 17(1) will apply to unsuccessful service, as well as to service which created an arrestment, and creditors and officers of court will be clear on what days they may or may not serve an arrestment schedule.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 53, line 35, leave out ("execution or").
On Question, amendment ageed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 54, line 26, leave out from ("books") to end of line 30 and insert—

("(b) a summary warrant, a warrant for civil diligence or a bill protested for non-payment by a notary public;

(c) an order or determination which by virtue of any enactment is enforceable as if it were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff;

(d) a civil judgment granted outside Scotland by a court, tribunal or arbiter which by virtue of any enactment or rule of law is enforceable in Scotland; or

(e) a document or settlement which by virtue of an Order in Council made under section 13 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 is enforceable in Scotland,

on which, or on an extract of which,")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to clarify the definition of "decree or other document" in this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 55, line 8, after ("fine") insert ("or any sum due under an order of court in criminal proceedings")
The noble and learned Lord said: Again this is to make clear the definition of ordinary debt in this clause using the formula of the definition of debt in Clause 15(3). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Inspection of work]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 59, line 43, after ("inspection") insert (", enquiry")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is to amend the clause to enable a person appointed to inspect the work of an officer of court to claim payment for his work in connection with inquiries into extra official activities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Collection of statistics from officers of court]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 64, line 14, after ("or) insert ("officers of court or")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment secures that any publication of statistical information does not identify officers of court. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Appeals]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 73, leave out line 21 and insert—
("(c) section 24(1) except in so far as it relates to orders declaring that a poinding is invalid or has ceased to have effect;
( ) section 24(3);")
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to secure that an order under Clause 24(1) declaring a poinding to be invalid or to have ceased to have effect will have immediate effect in the same way as similar orders under Clauses 50(1) and 55(1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 104 to 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Amendment No. 73:
Page 75, line 34, leave out ("section 76 and").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is to secure that Clause 76 will not come into force on Royal Assent but will do so on a day to be appointed by the Lord Advocate. It deals with the establishment of an advisory council. It is therefore appropriate that it should be taken out of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Recovery of rates and taxes etc.]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 85, line 32, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 85, line 33, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 85, line 36, leave out ("by") and insert ("from").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 78, 83 and 85. These amendments reflect current Customs and Excise terminology that taxes are due "from" a taxpayer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("that") to ("him") in line 39 and insert ("payment of the amount due from each such person has been demanded from").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move. I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 85, line 40, after ("due") insert ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 82:
Page 86, line 14, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 86, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
("(7) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision for anything which the Commissioners may do under sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) above to be done by an officer of the Commissioners holding such rank as the regulations may specify.".").
Page 86, line 25, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 86, line 26, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 86, line 28, leave out ("by") and insert ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 86, line 30, leave out from ("that") to ("him") in line 32 and insert ("payment of the amount due from each such person has been demanded from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 86, line 33, after ("due") insert ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 87, line 10, leave out ("proper officer") and insert ("Commissioners").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 87, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
("(9) The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for anything which the Commissioners may do under subparagraphs (5) to (8) above to be done by an officer of the Commissioners holding such rank as the regulations may specify.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Poindings and sales in pursuance of summary warrants]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 98, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 98, line 27, at end insert—
("(8) Where—

(a) any damaged article has been revalued under paragraph 5(4) above on the authority of the sheriff given under paragraph 13(2) above;

(b) the damage was not caused by the fault of the debtor; and

(c) no order has been made under paragraph 13(3) above requiring a third party to consign a sum in respect of the article, or such an order has been made but has not been complied with,

the amount credited to the debtor under sub-paragraph (7) above shall be an amount equal to the original valuation and not the revaluation referred to in paragraph (a) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 100, line 41, leave out ("10") and insert ("11").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 101, line 3, leave out ("in breach of a poinding") and insert ("with consent or authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 102, line 39, leave out ("an officer of court") and insert ("a sheriff officer").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 104, line 3, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 5 and insert ("Commissioners of Customs and Excise;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 107, line 28, at end insert—
("(f) in subsection (7A) for the words "distress is levied" there shall be substituted the words "things are taken into possession" and for the word "distress" where second occurring there shall be substituted the words "taking into possession".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 109, line 10, leave out ("by the debtor").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment amends Schedule 6, paragraph 28. The effect is in paragraph 24 of Schedule 7 to the Bankruptcy Act 1985 to remove the restriction that redemption can

381
only be by the debtor. Thus redemption by third parties under Clause 41(3)(a) will also be attracted. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no objection to this amendment. However, it appears to be wrong in that, by my counting, it is not on line 10 but on line 18. Something has gone wrong with the numbering of the lines on the side of the page. I hope that I have it in the correct place and therefore I have no objection to the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am in some difficulty because I have already moved this amendment. It being moved, I cannot withdraw it, but in the circumstances I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Territorial Sea Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Territorial Sea Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is about the limits of the territorial sea around and near the United Kingdom. I hope that when I have explained its purpose and contents, your Lordships will agree that, though short, it is a useful Bill.
The traditional position of the United Kingdom has been that the territorial sea of a state has a breadth of only three nautical miles. I shall not go into the history of this particular position—even if this deprives the House of some discussion of the picturesque background, including the supposed origin of the three miles as the distance that a cannon shot fired from the coast would carry.
However, even when support of the three-mile rule was at its strongest, a significant number of states asserted claims to a wider limit. International practice has now moved on. The majority of countries, if not all, including all our major allies, now either claim a territorial sea of 12 miles for themselves or recognise the territorial sea of 12 miles established by other countries. We had hoped to make this change ourselves in the context of a generally acceptable UN Law of the Sea convention, but this has not proved possible.
Another, though less important, factor has led to the introduction of this Bill. This is the Channel tunnel, on which a Bill is already before the House. The two matters are not dependent on each other. But it would be convenient if work on the tunnel throughout its
382
length took place within the limits of the territorial sea of one or the other of the two states involved, and if the legal status of each section of the tunnel were the same.
The main purpose of the present Bill is therefore to extend the breadth of the territorial sea from three to 12 miles. Legislation which applies in the three-mile territorial sea will in general apply over the wider 12-mile belt created by the extension. Owners and masters of vessels, whatever the flag, who discharge oil into the extended territorial sea, or who infringe traffic separation schemes in that extended area, would be open to prosecution in UK ports. The power to hold casualty inquiries on shipping accidents giving rise to oil pollution and the power to give directions in the cases of shipping accidents would extend more widely. Pirate broacasting from within 12 miles could he made the subject of prosecutions. Arrests for smuggling could be made further out.
For obvious reasons we cannot claim a full breadth of 12 miles in the Channel, where England and France lie closer than 24 miles apart. We are in touch with the French authorities about this and have in mind the making of an Order in Council, which this Bill authorises. This would establish, as the limit of the territorial sea, the line alreay agreed in 1982 as the boundary on the continental shelf.
We also have had to consider the position of straits. With a territorial sea of only three miles, there is a stretch of high seas through most straits, though not all. If the territorial sea is extended to 12 miles, many more straits—including some of the most important, such as the Straits of Dover, Hormuz in the Gulf, and Bab el Mandeb in the Red Sea—would be brought within the territorial sea of the neighbouring countries.
For this reason, it has been recognised in state practice, international negotiations and the case law of the International Court that a special regime for navigation is appropriate in straits. This is not so of course where a strait lies between an island and a mainland, and there is a convenient alternative route outside the island.
International law and practice have now developed to the point where, if the United Kingdom extends to 12 miles, we should afford to others the essential rights in some internationally important straits for which there is no alternative route; namely, the Straits of Dover, the North Channel lying between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the passage between Shetland and Orkney. These rights, which are widely recognised as necessary, include: a right of unimpeded passage through such straits for merchant vessels and warships; a right of overflight; the right of submarines to pass through the straits submerged; and appropriate safeguards for the security and other interests of the coastal state.
In other straits used for international navigation, such as the Pentland Firth south of Orkney and the passage between the Scilly Isles and the mainland of Cornwall, as in other parts of the territorial sea, a right of innocent passage will continue to exist in accordance with the practice of states.
I now turn to even more technical matters. But, before I go any further, it may be helpful to set out the legal character of the territorial sea. It is a belt of waters adjacent to the coast within which a coastal state

383
enjoys sovereignty. This sovereignty must be exercised in a manner which respects certain rights for the benefit of other states, notably the right of innocent passage for vessels passing through the territorial sea. I should add that "territorial sea"—the more modern term—and "territorial waters" have the same meaning and are interchangeable.
So far I have concentrated on the outer limit of the territorial sea which we propose should be extended to 12 miles. But there are also inner shoreward limits from which its breadth, whether three or 12 miles, is measured. These inner limits are technically known as "baselines". The normal baseline is the low water mark. But there are special rules for drying sandbanks, bays and fringes of islands. At present the baselines around the United Kingdom are established by Orders in Council mentioned in the Bill and made under the prerogative in 1964 and 1979. In future if this Bill is approved, orders establishing baselines for the territorial sea would have a statutory basis, as would existing Orders which up to now have been based on the Royal Prerogative.
Several provisions in the Bill simply adapt existing references in other legislation to fit with the new proposed 12 mile territorial sea. Others cover cases where legislation applying at present, for example, out to three miles need not or ought not he extended automatically to 12 miles.
This will be more conveniently explained by turning now to summarise the specific provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill extends from three to 12 nautical miles the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom. It authorises the establishment of another limit by Order in Council. It provides that, subject to the Bill, the new limits shall apply generally to other enactments and instruments.
Clause 1 also provides that the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured may be established in future by Order in Council; it gives effect under the Bill to existing Orders in Council made under the Royal Prerogative; and provides for certain legal certificates as to the location of these baselines.
Clause 2 preserves, despite the extension of the territorial sea, the present operation of any local Acts or the present limits of existing jurisdiction of any harbour authority or port health authority. These do not require automatic extension. Some provisions relating to coal and regulations and licences for petroleum exploration and exploitation now in force, which apply satisactorily already both in the three mile territorial sea and outside it on the continental shelf, are not to be effected.
Clause 3, which must be read with Schedules 1 and 2, makes minor and consequential amendments and repeals in existing legislation. These are thought appropriate in certain fields of legislation because the territorial sea is in general to be extended to twelve miles by virtue of Clause 1. For example, certain revenue statutes, when dealing with measures against smuggling, refer expressly to "three miles"; so do the statutes which applies the criminal law generally in the territorial sea. In future they would refer simply to the territorial sea or territorial waters, thus attracting the general extension to twelve miles made by the Bill.
384
There are also powers, by Order in Council, first, to make amendments to other Acts of Parliament similar to those in Schedule 1: secondly, to extend, when the need arises, the areas where marine nature reserves may be established; and, thirdly, to alter the effect of Orders in Council designating areas outside the territorial sea where certain rights are exercised on the Continental shelf.
Clause 4 provides for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill, and includes provision authorising the making of Orders in Council extending the provisions of the Bill to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, subject to any necessary exceptions, adaptations or modifications.
This is a technical Bill and I have tried to explain its purpose to your Lordships. I hope that this explanation will have been helpful. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Young.)
6.55 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very
grateful to the noble Baroness for the clear explanatory speech with which she opened this debate. This is an important Bill and is of great historical interest, especially to a maritime nation like ours. The emphasis on the so-called territorial sea as the House will recall became significant with the birth of territoriality in the 16th century. There were great debates between Grotius and people such as John Selden in this country, who supported closed seas. They all accepted that coastal states enjoyed some rights to regulate activities in the waters adjacent to their own coasts. Grotius did not argue that all seas were open to use by everybody. There were complicated arguments in subsequent years about property rights and jurisdictional rights in these waters and whether or not a coastal state had sovereignty over the coastal belt. On the whole, the principle that ships of all states enjoyed the right of innocent passage throughout the territorial sea has been observed for about 200 years.
The authorities on this complicated subject have found that two matters still remain unresolved; namely, the question of the width of the territorial sea and further the question of the precise juridical nature of coastal states' rights over the territorial sea.
The British view was that there was a belt of maritime territory surrounding these islands, although France and Spain did not agree. They held that there was merely jurisdictional competence for purposes such as defence and fishing.
It would be wrong to leave this debate without mentioning the famous "Franconia" case of 1876 (R. v Keyn). Captain Keyn was the Commander of the German ship "Franconia" which collided with the British ship "Strathclyde" two and a half miles off Dover causing the death of 38 of the Strathclyde passengers.
Captain Keyn was prosecuted for manslaughter in an English court and found guilty. He appealed on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was a foreigner and at the material time sailing on a foreign ship on the high seas. The Crown

385
maintained that the collision had occurred within three miles of the coast within the realm, and so within British jurisdiction.
There was great argument at the time, but the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (to the surprise of the British Government of the day) allowed the appeal. The court's view ( a majority view) was that British jurisidiction did not extend to foreigners and foreign ships beyond British shores. All this resulted in the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 which reaffirmed the rightful jurisdiction of the Crown over territorial waters which were deemed by international law to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty.
But the doubts concerning the juridical nature of the territorial sea have continued for several years. It is on the jurisdictional point as opposed to the sovereignty point that the argument has always centred. This was not finally settled until the Hague Conference of 1930 since when the sovereignty doctrine has been generally accepted. It is a curious fact that the relevant seabed and the airspace above has tended to be considered separately. Perhaps the noble Baroness can comment on that matter and whether or not it has any validity in relation to this Bill.
The House will know that throughout history the question of the width of the territorial seas has been a question of controversy. Different criteria were applied such as the limits of visibility—that was not taken very seriously. The noble Baroness also mentioned the length of a cannon shot. The three-mile limit gained widespread acceptance over the turn of the last century and in spite of all the differences of view this country has adhered more strongly to the three-mile limit than any other country. For example, as recently as the 1960s a statement was issued saying:
"Her Majesty's Government are obliged to place firmly on the record that they do not recognise territorial jurisdiction over waters outside the limit of three miles from the coast.
In their book The Law of the Sea two experts: R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowes made an interesting point as follows:
"it is meaningless to speak of a single limit for territorial sea claims existing at any one time. Between the three-mile states, the three—mile rule operated; between states claiming, say, six miles that distance was recognised."
There has always been keen international argument. When the first and second United Nations conferences on the Law of the Sea tried to agree on a limit in 1958 and 1960, they failed to come to any agreement.
The noble Baroness has very rightly pointed out that the purpose of the Bill is to bring us in line with other countries which have a 12-mile limit. We know that different groups of countries seek to observe different limits and we shall be grateful to the noble Baroness if she can give us an up to date list of those who observe the three-mile, the four-mile, the six-mile, 12 mile and more than 12 mile-limits when she comes to wind up later. Perhaps she can also comment on the extension to far greater distances in respect of pollution about which many noble Lords are concerned, and of course in relation to fishing as well.
As I said, the strongest argument in favour of the Bill is that the general trend in state practice is to set the limit of territorial waters at 12 miles. This was the decision of the Law of the Sea Convention, and there
386
is every reasonable expectation that all states will in due course come into line with this limit. I make that optimistic forecast in the hope that the noble Baroness will agree with it when she comes to wind up.
There is one important legal implication to this development: namely, the duties which the state in question owes to foreign vessels in its territorial waters. With this Bill we shall be assuming those obligations in a more extensive area of sea. I shall not go into detail but merely quote what Judge Fitzmaurice said in the fisheries jurisdiction case in 1973. The learned judge then said:
"The territorial seas involve responsibilities as well as rights…for example policing and maintaining order; buoying and marking channels and reefs, sandbanks and other obstacles; keeping navigable channels clear and giving notice of danger of navigation, providing rescue services, lighthouses, lightships, bellbuoys and so on".
That is quite a considerable range of duties.
I turn briefly to the question of delimitation between two states facing each other. The normal practice, as the House knows, is to agree on the median line as the boundary. I assume that this will be the position with France, which in the context of this Bill is the only state concerned. This has a special significance for the Channel tunnel project, and we noted with interest what the noble Baroness said about that.
The noble Baroness also mentioned a number of straits around these islands. I would add that the position of offshore islands can be a complication, and we should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain how the Channel Islands will be affected in practice. Presumably the object will be to agree with France a median line between their coasts and the French mainland, which is very close.
I do not know whether there have been discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government on this point. If there have, it would be interesting to know the results before the end of the debate. Can the noble Baroness say whether there are any implications for any other country in this apart from France—that is to say, any of our partners in the European Community?
When we debate a Bill connected with the sea, over 2,000 years of British history loom over this Chamber and the temptation, in view of its importance and fascination, is for us to embark in several directions, and that would take far too long. I believe that we have a duty to work out a consistent and organised policy on the resources of the sea as a whole, something I fear that successive governments of all complexions over a long period have failed to do.
We are conscious of the decline in areas where our country was pre—eminent—in shipping, shipbuilding and fisheries—although we must set against that the brilliant successes in the offshore oil industry. We must re-examine our record in the protection of the marine enviroment, and here there is a good deal to be proud of. I should be grateful to the noble Baroness if she could tell the House in this context why the area for marine nature reserves is not now automatically extended by this Bill.
There is also a great deal of concern about our failure to sign the Law of the Sea Convention, as the noble Baroness and the House are aware, but this is

387
something we can come back to again. I have two other brief questions for the noble Baroness if she will be kind enough to deal with them. First, can she say whether the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 will apply in the wider limit of the territorial sea; and, further, can she explain why it is inappropriate to extend harbour lights automatically? The House will be aware that this is a matter of concern in some quarters.
This Bill is a sensible and necessary measure, and we support it. It gives us the opportunity to look to the sea again and to make the British people conscious of their heritage of the sea. It is on the seas that we have excelled, and it may well be that our economic and industrial salvation lies in concentrating upon our maritime resources and the related age-old skills.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we too welcome this Bill. In point of fact I cannot remember how long I have been asking the Government to introduce such a Bill—certainly for 15 years, and possibly more. And so we see eye to eye with the Labour Party on that point. We also see eye to eye with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the importance of going on from this Bill to think out and introduce a proper general maritime policy, which this country so sadly lacks, and a general sea-use management policy which should be part of that.
The Minister of State told us a part of what, in the mind of the Government, was going to be the advantage of having this Bill and how they plan to use it. I should like to ask one or two other questions on which perhaps the noble Baroness could fill out if she is able to get the answer in time. If not, we can try by probing amendments later.
First, what international law do the Government propose to adhere to, he guided by and enforce in the new and enlarged territorial sea? The Minister of State said that it had not been possible for us to adhere to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention of 1982. Of course it was perfectly possible, but we chose not to. We chose to go along with President Reagan and one or two other countries only in the whole world and not adhere to it because of some presumed penalisation of the wealthy by the poor which was hidden in its provisions.
One cannot let the opportunity go by of saying, "Come on, hurry up. Think again. Join it like the rest of civilised mankind. It is obviously just". Do the Government in the meantime, before they have done the right thing about the UNCLOS Convention, propose to recognise, enforce and be guided by its provisions on their rights and duties in the territorial sea or by those of the 1958 convention? Whatever the Government say—and they have said some pretty dubious things—the 1958 convention is different from the 1982 convention. There are various points on which they flatly contradict one another.
The amount of state practice which the Government say absolves them from the need to choose which they believe in—state practice is otherwise known as the habit of breaking conventions, which is fairly widespread among signatories—does
388
not in fact absolve them from saying what law it is they will enforce in the new territorial sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke—and I am glad he did—of the duties which the declaration of new territorial sea areas imposed on this country. What are they?What will the Government do about their duties? To what duties will they give priority in this large new area for which they are now responsible?
There are one or two more detailed questions. We have had a word about the Channel Islands. What is the Government's intention about Rockall? Will they be declaring the 12-mile territorial waters around Rockall? The implications of this matter are fairly well known to all. We already have a continental shelf around it and that has landed us in a lot of trouble with Ireland, Iceland and I think even Denmark. Shall we be going further? I would say in advance of hearing the Government's view that we should. That is, if you have a rock which is technically part of your territory, it can only be the right thing to do to draw the natural conclusion.
The Bill applies to the United Kingdom only. What about colonial dependencies in the future? Will they, through the governments of the colonial dependencies, introduce the 12-mile limit for them? More questions please about what they are going to do with their rights. How are they going to exercise their rights within these waters round our own shores?
What about the Soviet electronic listening trawlers which have been stationed three-and-a-half miles off Clydemouth for about the last 20 years? Will they be given the shove now? It would seem a very happy occasion to do so. What about the Soviet fishing factory vessels which come at certain times of the year and sit three and a half miles off Cornwall to which the so-called Klondikers from Scotland and the North of England sell their Cornish fish catches without ever touching the shores of Cornwall? Will the opportunity be taken to give them a shove further out? I think that the espionage trawlers at Clydemouth—I am not sure how this works on the map, perhaps the noble Baroness can say—could be shoved right away out of sight. Is there enough water there for them to hang around even at 12 miles without hitting water from Northern Ireland or from some of the Scottish islands?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I must point out that the foreign Klondikers who come to Scotland lie well inshore at Ullapool and they have no problems at all. They are welcomed to our waters and are an alternative market for our fishermen.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to Soviet factory ships lying off Scotland. Is that right? I did not refer to them: I referred to Soviet factory ships lying off Cornwall, where there seems to be more agitation among the Cornish fishermen. Obviously it depends whether they are welcome to the British fishermen concerned.
What is the relationship of this Bill with the Pilotage Bill which is still before Parliament? There are those in the maritime world who wish that the Government had said that this Bill was coming before they launched the Pilotage Bill in Parliament. Will it make any difference to what is being provided for?

389
The Pilotage Bill provides for the retreat of Government control over pilotage in this country and its devolution, as it were, into the hands of the port authorities. Will the increased territorial water affect that in any way? Will it make it a Government responsibility to provide for the provision of pilotage further out? Will there be any change?
There are one or two details I wish to raise on the text of the Bill. Anything that the Minister of State can explain now will save time at Committee stage by way of probing amendments. Clause 1(2) states:
"Her Majesty ma) …provide that any part of the territorial sea …shall extend to such line other than that provided for by subsection ( 1)"
which is 12 miles. So, by order in council, the Government may make any other line than 12 miles. Does this mean they can make a line beyond 12 miles—for example, to 200 miles as some states now do—by Order in council without further legislation? If it does—as I think it does—do the Government intend at a later date to do anything like that, not necessarily in the United Kingdom but perhaps from the dependencies, perhaps Rockall?
Clause 3(3) allows that, by Order in Council, the Government may make modifications of an order in council which has been introduced under the Continental Shelf Act 1964. What sort of modifications to Continental Shelf Act orders do the Government have in mind in giving themselves this power in the Bill? Later, I note that there is specific provision to enlarge the territorial waters of the Channel Islands, which we would expect, and of the Isle of Man. Why is that delayed, so to speak? Why is that a separate issue in the Bill? Why is the power not taken immediately without putting it downhill into a later order?
Lastly, the noble Baroness spoke about "international straits", which go through what would otherwise be British territorial sea on both sides. She gave some examples. I think I have that right. There are other straits used by shipping which go through British territorial waters on both sides. I am thinking particularly of the Minch, which she did not mention. It would help the House to understand these complicated matters if she could say in a word, if that is not an ambitious request, what will be the difference between a strait which the Government are calling an international strait—although they need not do so because it is only 24 miles wide between one bit of Britain and another—and a strait which they are not calling an international strait but which is otherwise geographically and navigationally similar.
We welcome the Bill. The questions that I have put are meant to be helpful.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I had the privilege of being in the United Nations when the Law of the Sea Convention was being debated and when the United States announced its decision not to participate in that convention. It was a sad occasion for most of those who were present. It may seem churlish to refer to the many years that so many people have been pressing for the extension of the limit of territorial seas to 12 miles when the decision that is so much to be welcomed has
390
now been made. My own concern primarily arises from the study we made of marine oil pollution when the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution studied that subject and reported in 1981. It recommended strongly that this limit be adopted. Even at that time, over 100 states, including major maritime nations such as Japan, the USSR, France and Italy, already claimed territorial seas of 12 miles or more.
I do not believe that the extension of United Kingdom territorial waters will of itself markedly reduce pollution offences. The extension now proposed would extend the area in which offences committed by foreign vessels would be subject to prosecution under our own national law. It would extend the area in which pollution incidents occur in respect of which compensation could be claimed for damage caused. Perhaps most important it would extend the area over which the United Kingdom would have powers to intervene in shipping incidents which pose a pollution threat to our coasts.
International conventions make some provision under which a coastal state can take action to protect its coastline against oil pollution threatened by a shipping casualty outside its territorial waters. Somewhat similar provisions now apply also to chemicals. The difficulty is that the coastal state may intervene only after a casualty has occurred and where there is a grave and imminent danger of pollution to its coastline or territorial waters. The coastal state may take such action only as is necessary to avoid the pollution danger and must consult the flag state of the vessel concerned.
For all these reasons, an extension of the territorial waters to a limit of 12 miles is much to be welcomed. There is however a further point which deserves to be mentioned. It is important that the criteria for intervention when a ship gets into trouble in territorial waters should be clearly established. For example, there was the case of the "Athina B", a Greek owned vessel of about 3,500 dwt carrying a cargo of pumice which got into difficulties in bad weather close to Shoreham harbour. She was carrying 300 tonnes of bunker oil. A tug was quickly on the scene but returned to harbour as terms of tow could not be agreed. The coastguard reported to the appropriate authorities, I understand, that taking into account the coastline, and the state of the weather and of the vessel, she would be driven onto Brighton beach in the space of about six hours. Intervention by the authorities in the light of this report was clearly required, but no action was taken, possibly in the mistaken belief that this was contrary to the ship's right of innocent passage in territorial waters, which surely could not apply to a disabled ship out of control and about to run aground.
Sure enough, the ship was driven on to Brighton beach, where she holed herself on a concrete groyne. In fact no oil pollution resulted. This, however, was a happy chance. Had the 300 tonnes of bunker oil been spilt it would have caused substantial pollution on one of England's premier beaches, which would have been difficult and costly to clean up. With the extension of territorial waters from three to 12 miles, it would seem that particular regard should be paid to tightening up the criteria for intervention where an incident of this kind occurs. The requisite powers to intervene exist.

391
There is one other point to which I would refer and it relates to lightening operations at sea; that is, the offloading of part of the cargo of a tanker to another vessel, usually to reduce its draft. One often sees such lightening operations taking place in Lyme Bay, within the three-mile limit, but quite a number of such operations take place outside the three-mile territorial limit but within 12 miles of the shore. Tankers lightening within the three-mile limit and subsequently proceeding to British ports are liable to prosecution if spillages occur. The ability of the UK authorities to proceed against vessels responsible for spills will be enhanced on extension of territorial seas to 12 miles.
I recognise that the appalling experience of major pollution incidents in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" have happily not been repeated around our shores in the last few years. There continue, however, to be less dramatic incidents giving rise to oil spills resulting both from accidents and from intentional and unlawful discharges. The extension to the 12-mile limit may, subject to the difficulties of detection of the source of the oil, help to limit pollution from these causes.
The economic malaise which has afflicted the shipping industry gives, I suggest, some cause for concern in the context of pollution. For instance, so far as I am aware, tanker fleets are not being renewed and the increasing use of flags of convenience seems likely to lead to less supervision of standards of the ships and their crews by the oil companies than existed previously. I fear therefore that it may be chance which has resulted in a substantial reduction in major pollution from tankers, because there is the experience of increasing trouble arising from accidents from bulk cargo carriers. These may themselves of course be carrying up to around 20,000 tonnes of bunker fuel, which can be difficult to clean up.
I do not believe, therefore, that we can afford to take a relaxed view of oil (or indeed chemical) pollution of the sea and of our territorial waters and coasts, as a result of the better experience we have had in this decade compared to the previous two. The extension of the territorial waters to 12 miles should certainly help us to meet trouble when it comes.
There is one question of a quite different character which I ask the Minister. It relates to the recognition of the 12-mile limit adopted by certain other states. As I understand, in the Gulf there are certain states which had, and have, a limit of three miles, and certain of those states extended their limit to 12 miles, but hitherto we have not recognised the validity of that extension. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can inform us about that.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for having introduced this Bill so clearly and concisely. Its appearance a few days ago constituted a break with centuries of tradition for this country, but it was a necessary break and a change which I welcome because the balance of advantage for Britain has changed.
392
As a leading maritime nation, Britain has in the past stood for freedom of navigation of the high seas throughout the world and has regarded the high seas as everything beyond a narrow coastal strip of three miles. As a mercantile nation as well as a maritime nation, we have certainly made good use of that freedom to sail the high seas throughout the world. It gives me pleasure to congratulate the Government on now bringing forward this Bill, because I have been encouraging them strongly to do so for several years. My noble friend has confirmed that one of the reasons for introducing the measure now is that it would be convenient from the point of view of the Channel tunnel.
I should like to ask her about timing. The Bill can be presumed, I think, to be enacted during the course of this year. Under Clause 4 different parts of it can be brought into force at different times. Can the Government give us any idea of whether it is intended that the main parts of the Bill should come into force soon after enactment?
Then I should like to ask about the position of the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for a list of countries which still recognise three miles and those which have extended to 12 miles. There are some who claim 100 or 200 miles of territorial waters. But my understanding is that the only nation of significance which still maintains a three-mile territorial sea is the United States. It would be helpful to know what their intentions are at the moment. Had the United States been prepared to accept the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, it would then have been part of its programme to recognise a 12-mile limit. But the United States has not, and so it would be useful to know the position there.
I would ask, arising from that, whether the Government now regard this change as customary law—that is to say, that it has been adopted or recognised by the large majority of maritime nations of the world—because that is the way in which fishing limits were extended in 1976 and 1977. Virtually all the maritime countries had agreed to an extension of fishing limits to 200 miles. That was also enshrined in the text of the convention, but without waiting for the convention to come into force the 200-mile fishing limit was adopted and we in your Lordships' House here gave the Bill a fair wind from the Opposition Front Bench in 1976 and 1977. Is this also to be regarded now as customary law in that way?
Are the Government satisfied that passage will be guaranteed through international straits in other parts of the world? So far there has been discussion about straits around our own country, like Dover, but it has in the past been important that we should be sure before we move from three to 12 miles that our vessels would be able to pass through straits such as Gibraltar, Malacca and Hormuz—straits which are less than 24 miles wide. The right of innocent passage we expect not only for merchant vessels but also for naval and military vessels, including aircraft and submerged submarines. Can my noble friend tell us anything about that which we ought to know?
Further have any transit passage regimes already been formulated in different parts of the world for such international straits or been put into effect? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the Minch in this

393
connection. I must tell him that the Minch has already been within the territorial sea of the United Kingdom, at three miles, because of the base lines. I do not think that a problem will arise because of this extension.
The reasons for the change must be that other countries have been enforcing their 12-mile jurisdiction upon our vessels and we have had to recognise that. We could not opt out. And yet there was no reciprocity while we were asserting only a three-mile territorial sea around the United Kingdom. This is especially true where the prevention of pollution was concerned.
We shall in the future be able to control the conduct of ships up to a distance of 12 miles from our coast. I shall not repeat what I have said before in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who spoke before me, took part in the debate I opened in March 1982 on the subject of the report of the Royal Commission on Pollution of the Sea, of which he was a member, and also an EC report. One of the Royal Commission's principal recommendations was that we should extend our territorial seas to 12 miles. The extension of United Kingdom jurisdiction should enable action to be taken against sources of pollution over a large area of sea or against threats of pollution of coastal waters as well as the coastline. In future, offenders should be brought to book more easily.
There has been welcome international acceptance in recent years of what is called port jurisdiction rather than flag jurisdiction—that is to say, rather than the home country or registration country being responsible for taking an offender to task. The combination of the extension of the territorial sea, quadrupling in this way the breadth of the territorial limit, and being able to act against an offender in a port of call will greatly help to deter those who deliberately cause pollution or who cause pollution through carelessness.
I am glad to see that the House will be asked later today to approve a Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order. That will give effect to measures internationally agreed to improve upon the provisions of the 1973 international convention. These improvements are helping to prevent pollution and we shall be better able to monitor and police those measures when this Bill has been enacted and has entered into force.
We shall also have much greater control of the traffic round the coasts of Britain in order to prevent collisions and investigate accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned Rockall. I remind him that I was the Secretary of State who put this Bill through Parliament in 1972, confirming that Rockall was part of Scotland. It is an uninhabited island, although a certain Tom McLean showed that it could be inhabited for some weeks. However, the position of an uninhabited island is something which must be looked at. The claims of other countries are also subject to various conventions regarding the position of an uninhabited island. In this case, if it had a three-mile territorial limit around it, it ought to be a 12-mile limit in the future.
I suggest that the proposals in this Bill are not controversial and should not meet much opposition in either House of Parliament. In the 1983–84 Session I
394
offered to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to put forward a Bill of this kind as a Private Member's Bill. That was nearly accepted because the Government found it difficult to find time for a government Bill to fit into the rather heavy legislative programme at that time. I am glad to say that I am now no longer needed as a private pilot, and that is why I am particularly pleased that the Bill is coming forward today.
The reason that I made such an offer is that in the past I have been involved in these subjects, beginning in the Foreign Office in the late 1940s and then in the United Nations for three years after that. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, is not here because I am reminded that he and I were working together with Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, who was mentioned earlier in the debate and who went on to become a judge in the International Court at The Hague, and Sir Eric Beckett, on our case in the Corfu Channel incident. I was then dealing with Eastern Europe. Two British warships had struck mines and more than 40 of our sailors were killed.
That kind of situation should now be eliminated. Everyone should know where international straits are, they should be designated and all nations should enjoy the right of free passage through them. I hope that the Bill will receive the full support it deserves.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Baroness the Minister is now realising the possibilities of this apparently simple piece of legislation. It interests me very much that all the Back-Bench speakers listed have been active in one or other of two organisations. The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Campbell of Croy, as well as myself, have all been officers on the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, are currently members of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, of which I was a member in 1981 when the Royal Commission reported on pollution of the sea. I think I can fairly claim to be the only one of the Back-Bench speakers who has been a member of both organisations. That accounts for my interest in the matter.
On the other hand, many of the vital points have already been made and I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will take up the matter of marine nature reserves. I should be very much surprised if he did not. I shall therefore confine myself to some very brief remarks. I much regret that the two noble and learned Lords whose names appeared on the list of speakers have found themselves unable to be present at this time. That seems to me unfortunate because, as a piece of legislation, I find that this brief Bill reminds me very much of Alice through the Looking Glass. There is nothing in this Bill for which it is not also provided that it may be altered, removed, extended or changed, either by an Order in Council or by a certificate. It is the most astonishing method of legislating.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, drew attention to Clause 1(2). If we then look at Clause 1(5), we

395
find—and it is not very often we legislate in this way—that the section states:
"Any enactment or instrument which (whether passed or made before or after the coming into force of this section) contains a reference (however worded) to the territorial sea …shall be construed in accordance with this section and with any provision made, or having effect as if made, under this section".
It is a most curious way of dealing with this matter—but then of course I am not a lawyer. I should have thought that our colleagues would have enjoyed themselves in dealing with this Bill.
The main and very satisfactory purpose of the Bill is to extend the three-mile limit. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others have indicated, this is something we asked for quite vehemently in the report of the Royal Commission in 1981. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his other capacities well before that time, and, I think, every chairman of ACOPS that I know of, has asked for this extension on the grounds of the assistance it may give in dealing with pollution of the seas.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn suggested that the United Kingdom had adhered more strongly to the three-mile limit than any other maritime nation. I might fairly use the word "obstinately" in that connection. I do not wish to go into too much history but it did astonish me when I made inquiries about this subject to find that as recently as 1951 the United Kingdom actually took Norway to the International Court of Justice because Norway was endeavouring to enforce a four-mile limit. That seems to me a rather extravagant complaint on our part. In 1981 there were, according to the Royal Commission report, more than 100 states which were observing the 12-mile limit. Spain apparently adopted a six-mile limit at the end of the 18th century, Russia started using a 12-mile limit at the beginning of this century, and so on.
With the possible exception of the United States, we have been the slowest of any maritime country to recognise that the 12-mile limit makes sense. The reason for that has been touched on by preceding speakers. It is partly due to the fact that we are now much more of a coastal state than a maritime state. Our Merchant Navy has diminished with rapidity and even the Royal Navy is of less consequence than it was in earlier times. Therefore our balance of interests, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated, has changed.
I say not only personally but as someone still connected with ACOPS that I very much regret that Her Majesty's Government found it impossible even to sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I know that there were moral arguments that we ought not to sign if we were not prepared to ratify everything contained therein, but it made a very unfortunate impression. I am glad that at least we are now taking this step in the right direction.
I am concerned about the pollution possibilities. It is certainly satisfactory that we should now be able to take into account offences within the wider area, 12 miles instead of the three miles. We still do not have adequate port state jurisdiction, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The fact that we can now operate within 12 miles does not by
396
any means put us in a position where we can take action as a port state over the areas outwith the 12 miles. I am well aware that the Paris memorandum of understanding of 1982 makes it possible for us to take action regarding the actual safety of ships if they call in our ports and their physical condition is not up to standard. But it does not mean that we can take action against pollution or other offences. I do not know whether the noble Baroness feels able to say anything about that.
I have just mentioned the marine nature reserves in which some of us are interested. It is quite astonishing that, as appears from the way in which Schedule 1(6) is drafted, we do not take it for granted that the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 referring to marine nature reserves should be effective within the 12 nautical miles. This schedule refers only to areas seaward of baselines up to a distance of three nautical miles.
I am well aware that the area which might be designated as marine nature reserves within that territorial area of even three nautical miles is not very large. We have trouble enough trying to designate any marine reserves within our existing waters. As we all know, Lundy is the only one that has so far been designated. I have had some brief discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council, which says that, while there is no immediate prospect of wishing to take action beyond the proposed three nautical miles, nobody knows what may happen in the future, when diving techniques may be further extended and we may wish to do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us why one has to make this distinction between the proposed 12 nautical miles and the three nautical miles included in the schedule.
I do not wish to delay the House any further on this matter beyond indicating that the way in which the Bill is drafted caused me at least some surprise. Every single provision seems also to provide for its modification, withdrawal or extension. I cannot think of any other Bill that has so many let-outs for every one of its provisions. However, we would all wish to support its main intention to extend our territorial waters.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to echo the regret expressed a moment or two ago by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the 12-mile provision has not automatically been extended to encompass marine nature reserves. Whatever at present may be the intention or the wish to designate marine nature reserve areas, we must look forward to a time when they can be selected on genuine biological grounds, grounds whereby we can have regard to the natural topography of the seabed, the natural flow of currents, the natural quality of the sea waters and other characteristics, without the imposition of an artificial linear boundary of this nature which could be entirely disastrous in biological terms. I hope that we can have some assurances from my noble friend that she will look sympathetically at all possible opportunities to allow marine nature reserves to be established when they are finally created on genuine biological grounds.

397
The unfortunate consequences that can occur are illustrated by some of the regrettable incidents that have taken place, to the detriment of our cultural heritage rather than of our biological heritage, to which I now want to turn. My noble friend has had a great many questions thrown at her and I do not intend to add to that list. I wish to pick up and to emphasise rather more strongly than she did a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, concerning the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. I noticed that my noble friend said that the general legislation now applied to three-mile limits will automatically be extended to 12 miles. She also went to on say that some provisions need not or ought not be so extended.
On the Bill itself and in the explanatory memorandum, I see no mention in either category of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. This Act allows for some degree of archaeological control to be applied to the salvage of shipwrecks which are of special historical or archaeological significance. The Goodwin Sands at present lie astride the three-mile limit, and the extension of our territorial waters to 12 miles will therefore encompass what can only be described as the world's largest deposit of ancient vessels. Many of the wrecks on the Goodwin Sands are known by name. They are of historic date and the controlled excavation of these wrecks could be of immense importance. This same area can be expected to hold unknown wrecks of even more ancient date, extending back to the Roman period, the Phoenician period and still earlier, perhaps to the first efforts of man to navigate across the North Sea. This is an enormously rich ground for the wreck hunter.
The hunting of wrecks has become a growing activity lately and a growing menace to the preservation of our cultural heritage in this form. Operations are now on a scale far greater than they have been before and the operators are using machines, rather like giant underwater vacuum cleaners, that simply sweep up everything and destroy in so doing all opportunities for controlled archaeological excavation.
Moreover, these operators now have serious commercial backing. Large commercial concerns including international banking firms have supported wreck hunters, though not to a great extent yet in our own seas. Where there is money one expects pressures to be exerted. We already have before us the sorry example of the "Admiral Gardner", an important archaeological wreck for which protection was sought, but because it lay outside the three-mile limit it was lost and was therefore looted. At present certain matchboxes are available using coins from this wreck for advertising purposes. On the whole, that seems a deplorable misuse of something that could have been a controlled and informative excavation.
The wrecks which lie within what will be an extended territorial sea are part of our cultural heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to 2,000 years of British history. A lot of that, back into pre-history, lies there to be recovered; but it must be protected before the less reputable of the recoverers get to it. It would be deplorable if this cultural heritage was not protected as resolutely as are the ancient monuments on land. Therefore, I ask again in stronger
398
terms the question that has already been posed to my noble friend. What will be the position of the 1973 Act after our territorial waters are extended?
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate and, indeed, for the very wide welcome that this Bill has received from all parts of the House. As is only to be expected on this occasion, all those who have spoken have done so from a great wealth of personal knowledge on this subject. That has shown the importance and value of this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said in the course of his remarks, I have been asked an enormous number of questions. I shall do my best to answer them but I can assure your Lordships that I shall carefully read Hansard tomorrow and if there are points which need to be followed up I shall do so.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his response to the Bill. He asked a number of questions. He first asked whether the sea bed and air space should be treated separately. The limit applies generally to the water, the sea bed and the air space. He also asked what are the territorial limits for a number of states. I have a complete table and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I send a copy of it to all who have spoken in this debate. However, for the moment I shall summarise. Fifteen states claim three miles, including incidentally the United States of America; two states claim four miles; 100 states claim 12 miles, and 21 states more than 21 miles. However, as I said, I shall circulate a full list to all those who have taken part in the debate so that they are in possession of the precise details.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, further asked about the line that had been agreed with France in the Straits of Dover and how it is to be drawn. This is a very technical matter which I suspect he, like myself, will need to look at very closely. However, my understanding is that on the Straits of Dover it is a simplified median line; that is, a median line which is constructed by a number of straight lines which follow the general line of the more complicated median line. I confirm that there are Community states other than France with whom a limitation of territorial sea will be necessary in the case of the Channel tunnel.
A number of speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, together with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, mentioned marine nature reserves. I understand very much the strength of feeling on this matter. The present priority, as I understand it, is to establish marine nature reserves in the existing three-mile territorial sea. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, properly said, Lundy was designated last year and further sites are being processed. Both Skomer and Menai are well advanced and we hope that they will be designated this year. Other sites such as Loch Sween, St. Abb's Head, Bardsey and the Scilly Isles are under consideration.
I was asked why the area for marine nature reserves is not automatically extended by this Bill. Our present priority is to establish marine nature reserves in the existing three-mile territorial sea. We do not yet have the scientific data we need to make a reliable

399
assessment of whether such reserves are also required between the three miles and the 12 miles. If we find that to be the case, Clause 3(2)(b) and (c) provide the necessary power by Order in Council to include such areas.
Baroness White: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Would it not be simpler just to put the full 12 miles in the Bill now instead of having to do so later if required? What is the objection to that?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding is that because we are at present in the process of establishing these marine nature reserves within the three-mile limit we do not yet have the scientific data available to make a reliable assessment of whether a marine nature reserve is needed between three and 12 miles. That is why the power is in the Bill to make such a reserve by Order in Council. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook also asked about maritime wrecks. I fully understand their concern and that of nautical historians and archaeologists. I confirm that the effect of the Bill is that the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 would automatically apply in the wider area of the territorial sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about harbour limits. There are already established procedures to extend, when necessary, the limits of harbour authorities. Where these limits are in a private Act, as is the usual case, such Acts have been passed after undergoing the Private Bill procedure, which enables local interests to present their viewpoints for the consideration of Parliament. Similarly, if limits are proposed to be changed by an order under the Harbours Act there is provision for a public inquiry, where again local interests can be represented.
These procedures provide safeguards for people whose interests might be affected by an extension of limits. We think it much better to leave these procedures to be applied if necessary rather than to make an automatic change through this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked a number of questions. I begin by dealing with his question about Rockall, because it gives me an opportunity to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that we were of course delighted to have him confirm that he was the man who made Rockall a part of Scotland by introducing the Bill. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that it is a part of Scotland. It already has a territorial sea of three miles and under the Bill this will be automatically extended to 12 miles.
The noble Lord also referred to Clause 1(2) and asked whether the Government could make extensions by Order in Council of 200 miles, because that is contrary to international law. Clause 3(3) contains a power to alter the effect of orders designating areas of Continental Shelf because these will become territorial sea. I cannot see any other occasions for an Order in Council under the Bill amending the Continental Shelf Act 1964.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to take up the noble Baroness on one point, because she did not answer my question about Clause 1(2) and the possibility of putting the line at the outside edge of the territorial sea further out than 12 miles. It would not have to be 200 miles—that is an extreme case—but is it open to the Government to draw it further out than 12 miles rather than closer in under that provision?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I understand it it would be possible but not by virtue of this Bill. I think that it would be something that could be done separately. If I am not correct on that point, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also asked about the competing claims of the 1958 and 1982 conventions. We are parties to the 1958 convention but the 1982 convention will not be in force even for the signatories. He also asked about the Minches. I think that that was a point that was answered by my noble friend Lord Campbell, but I can confirm that ships of foreign states enjoy innocent passage, but submarines would not be able to pass through the area except on the surface, and aircraft could not overfly, as they could, straits such as the Straits of Dover.
The noble Lord also asked about the dependent territories. I can confirm to him that the Bill does not apply to the dependancies.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it the Government's intention later on to introduce provisions through the governments of those dependencies to give them a 24-mile limit too?
Baroness Young: My Lords, under this Bill we do not intend to extend the provisions to the dependencies. That would require another Bill.
We all listened with very great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. We know his long experience in matters of the environment and the service that he has given on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He asked why the Government have not taken steps to control tanker lightening. The need to regulate transhipment and tanker lightening is recognised, but the detailed form that the necessary legislation might take is still under consideration. The noble Lord also asked, as did the noble Baroness, Lady White, how the extension to 12 miles might improve pollution control. We recognise the concern over marine pollution and have had very much in mind the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1981 to extend the territorial sea to deal with oil pollution.
This Bill or course is concerned with the limits of the territorial sea and not the actual regime there. However, it will strengthen our ability to control pollution. In particular, powers to prosecute under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983 will be automatically extended so that owners and masters of ships that discharge oil into the sea within the extended territorial sea can be prosecuted on arrival in a UK port. Only UK vessels can be prosecuted for such offences beyond the limits of the territorial sea.

401
Similarly, under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 powers of intervention in any incident where there is a threat of large scale pollution to the United Kingdom or to its territorial sea would apply in respect of the wider area of the territorial sea.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Baroness enlarge a little on that statement? Are Her Majesty's Government proposing to do anything further to extend port state jurisdiction, which of course it would have achieved under Article 2.1.8 of the Law of the Sea Convention?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the answer to that is that this Bill is not concerned with what might be the réegime within the three-to 12-mile limit to which we are now extending but with extending the limit itself. As regards the specific point that she has raised, if I may, I shall write to her if there is something further I can say but I think that the way I have described it is correct.
The noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Campbell, asked about the recognition of other states' 12-mile limits, which of course is a most important point, and they referred in particular to the Strait of Hormuz and the attitude of the United States. The implications of the enactment of the Bill are that we shall recognise properly drawn 12-mile limits of other countries in the Gulf and elsewhere, in the same way that we expect them to recognise the navigational rights of other states. We believe that such limits are permitted by customary law and I believe that, although it has a three-mile limit, the United States now takes the same view. As to reciprocal treatment by others in the light of the Bill, we believe that the freedom of navigation and other rights in straits which we intend to accord to other states are widely respected and will be accorded to us.
There was one final question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, regarding Soviet surveillance vessels which I did not answer. I can confirm to him that the right of innocent passage is the right to pass expeditiously. Ships have no right to remain anchored in the territorial sea.
I shall look carefully at the record of our debate tomorrow. I am grateful to noble Lords for the many points that have been raised and in particular for the welcome that has been given to the Bill and for the interest in it that has been expressed by those who have taken part in the debate this evening. As I agreed, I shall circulate the list of states, and perhaps I should say that, no doubt by a slip of the tongue, I may have misread one piece of information. There are 21 states that claim more than 12 miles and not the other way round, as I think I gave the information. At any rate I too must read Hansard to see what I said. However, I shall circulate the correct list of all the countries to each noble Lord who has taken part in the debate this evening. I am grateful for the welcome given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Coal Industry Bill
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
A Coal Industry Bill is far from being a novelty in this House; indeed the introduction of such Bills has been a regular occurrence since this Government came to office. However, this is the first of those Bills which I have had the privilege to introduce; and I am particularly proud to be associated with a Bill which does so much to pave the way for a secure and prosperous future for the British coal industry. In a few moments I shall explain the provisions of the Bill, but first I should like to say a few words to set the background.
Throughout their time in office, the Government have demonstrated their confidence in the coal industry by making available large sums of money for investment and to assist the industry in tackling the enormous problems which had beset it for many years. With the Government's help the industry began seriously to address those problems and by 1983 some progress had been made toward putting British Coal on a sound commercial footing.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of what happened then. The industry was plunged into the longest, most senseless and most destructive strike that this country has ever seen. I shall not dwell on its causes or its conduct but I would stress the immense damage that the strike did to British Coal's timetable for financial recovery.
After the strike management and workforce came together to repair the damage. Enormous progress was made in a very short time. But then, early last year, came the dramatic tall in oil prices. From British Coal's point of view it could not have come at a worse time. However, despite these vagaries of the world oil market, British Coal continues to make strides in the right direction. This has been particularly notable in the case of productivity. After years of stagnant productivity levels we now see pit, area and national productivity records broken week after week. In 1983–84 the average output per man shift was 2÷43 tonnes. The figure now regularly stands above the three and a half tonnes mark. For that remarkable improvement I am pleased to pay tribute to all those mineworkers in every part of the country who have made it possible, regardless of the trade union to which they belong.
Important as increased productivity may be, however, it is only part of the picture, and not enough by itself to ensure the future health of the industry. In the period since the end of the strike, there has been a dramatic and overdue restructuring of the industry. Uneconomic capacity has been closed and large numbers of men have volunteered for the very generous redundancy terms which have been available to them under the Government's redundant mineworkers' payments scheme.
This latest period of major restructuring of the industry is now drawing to a close, but it is in the nature of an extractive industry that it should be in a constant state of change. It is therefore not possible to say that there will be no continuing restructuring. However, from now on the industry will not need to

403
continue restructuring at the same pace. There are some redundancies still to come. Pits will continue to close, as they have always closed, under all governments. But the Bill which is before your Lordships today presages a new period in which the industry finally has within its reach the prize of financial independence.
I turn now to the details of the Bill. The Bill has three main purposes which I should like to explain before describing the contents of the individual clauses. Each of the main purposes of the Bill in some way exemplifies this new era which we are entering. First, the Bill changes, formally, the name of the National Coal Board to the British Coal Corporation; it was fitting, after the changes that have taken place in the industry, that it should also change its trading name and adopt the name of "British Coal".
Second, the Bill further extends the Government's financial commitment to the coal industry, still necessary in this transitional period. Third, the Bill makes provision for the participation of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and other minority unions in the management of coal industry trusts, social welfare organisations and superannuation schemes. This marks the rise of a new realism among those employed in the coal industry and a realisation that the future course of the industry lies in their hands.
I will now take your Lordships through the first four clauses of the Bill in some detail. The first clause is necessarily that which changes the name of the National Coal Board to the British Coal Corporation. The trading name "British Coal" was adopted last year for very sound commercial and marketing reasons. Others have chosen to believe that the change presages privatisation but I can assure your Lordships that there is no truth whatsoever in that allegation. British Coal is a more modern name than National Coal Board, a name which neatly sums up the nature of the product and a name of which I believe we can all be proud. This provision in the Bill is intended simply to tidy up the current problems caused by having two names.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 deal with financial provisions. Clause 2 provides for the continuation of deficit grant powers. The Government introduced the power to pay these grants in the Coal Industry Act 1980. They are intended to eliminate or reduce any group deficit of the corporation and its subsidiaries. In the present Bill the power to pay these grants is extended for two years; that is, to the end of the corporation's 1988–89 financial year.
In Clause 3, we come to new territory. The Government announced in March that, with the prospect of a much reduced pace of restructuring in the industry, the time was approaching when British Coal would again be able to take more responsibility for deciding and financing their redundancy terms. The present redundant mineworkers payments scheme is therefore not to be renewed after March 1987. In October last year, British Coal announced new terms for voluntary redundancies.
It is not, however, the intention abruptly to end all support in this area. Payments to men who have taken redundancy under the RMPS will continue to be made
404
under the relevant statutory instrument. Payments to the corporation in respect of earlier years are covered by Clause 4. The new grants system under section 3—perhaps we should call them restructuring grants—is designed to be appropriate to an industry which is progressing to commercial viability, but which does not yet have the financial strength fully to fund the measures necessary to complete the transitional process.
Clause 3 will establish a flexible régime under which, by the introduction of annual orders, grant can be paid towards a fairly broad range of expenditure associated with restructing and the maintenance of concessionary coal and social welfare provisions. The use of affirmative resolution order-making powers will enable the terms of the grant support to be set out shortly before the start of a financial year of the corporation in the light of circumstances at the time. The Government would expect, as the corporation's financial position improves, that there would be a gradual transfer of some of these costs to the corporation. The power to make these orders applies initially to the 1987–88 and 1988–89 financial years of the corporation, but may be extended by up to a further three years. The kinds of expenditure by the corporation which will be eligible for grant are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Clause 3 refers to costs incurred after March 1987. However, the corporation will for some years to come have to spend money on costs which were incurred, or on obligations entered into, prior to that date. For that reason, Clause 4 makes various transitional arrangements to allow grant towards that expenditure to continue to be paid. This will be done on essentially the same terms as have so far applied under Section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977. That summarises the financial provisions of the Bill.
The next three clauses of the Bill are provisions which must be introduced because it is clear that the changes they allow are proving difficult, or impossible, to make in any other way. It saddens me in a country so proud of its democratic traditions, and for an industry whose workers were proud of the democracy in their union, that such provisions should have to be made in legislation.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are designed to protect basic rights of employees in the coal industry; rights which, since the strike, have been denied to large numbers of miners around the country. Many of these miners are represented by a democratic trade union which has been refused affiliation to the Labour Party and the TUC. It is not for the Government to engineer affiliation for a union to another political party, although I am bound to regret the response it has had from the party of its choice. This Bill can, however, help thousands of miners in their fight for fair representation on the institutions of the coal industry.
In June last year, the High Court in effect confirmed that the coal industry's previous conciliation machinery must be changed to recognise the emergence of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. British Coal was thus obliged, as indeed it wished, to negotiate new conciliation machinery with the NUM and the UDM, under the terms of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. I understand from British Coal that proposals for this new machinery are being

405
discussed with the unions. It is therefore unnecessary to make provision in this Bill for ensuring participation in such machinery.
The Bill deals with three specific areas in which powers are to be taken. These are miners' welfare trusts, coal industry social welfare, and superannuation schemes. Clause 5 empowers the Charity Commissioners, after receiving an application from an employee organisation, to amend charitable trusts related to the coal industry if the members of that organisation constitute a substantial portion of those who may benefit under the trust. Their aim in amending the trust would be to secure for that employee organisation fair representation among the trustees of the trust. The Charity Commissioners already have power in this area, but can at present exercise them only if they receive an application from the charity itself. In the present situation, in which many of the trustee bodies are dominated by the NUM, such approaches are unlikely. The provisions under this clause are therefore a necessary extension of existing powers.
The miners' welfare trusts are a very important part of everyday life in coal mining communities. It is sad and disappointing that the NUM has refused to agree that the necessary changes would be made to give the UDM its fair and proper role in the running of trusts in those areas where the UDM is dominant or strongly represented. Similarly, the NUM has denied the UDM and other minority unions a proper role in the management of social welfare organisations within the industry and, in particular, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to amend the constitution of a coal industry social welfare body if it appears to him, after receiving representations from the corporation, that any organisation which represents a substantial proportion of its employees does not enjoy full participation in that body.
If that is the case, he is empowered by this clause to make an order amending the body's constitution to confer on the employee organisations rights to full participation in the affairs of that body. Before such an order is made, the clause requires consultation with the corporatioin and those organisations which represent substantial proportions of the corporation's employees. As I have said, it has been the Government's hope that changes such as these could be achieved without legislation. An order under this section is a last resort, but one which cannot be delayed much longer if all mineworkers are to be allowed the participation in their own affairs which is their due.
Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers in relation to coal industry superannuation schemes similar to those I have just outlined for social welfare bodies. Again consultation is required before an order can be made. At present many thousands of mineworkers belong to a pension scheme in the running of which they have no say whatsoever. This cannot be right.
I have every confidence that the financial provisions in this Bill will enable the corporation to pass comfortably through the present phase which will see its final transformation from one of the lame duck
406
nationalised industries to a fit and commercially viable enterprise in tune with the needs of the modern world's energy markets.
I am similarly confident that the provisions dealing with union representation on the institutions of the industry will achieve their aim of defending the democratic rights of mineworkers. It is in this spirit that I commend this Bill to your Lordship's House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now a read a second time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
8.21 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. It was much less provocative and with much less coat trailing than the way in which it was introduced in another place. The Opposition do not disagree with him. We do not dispute the Bill's three main objectives: to change the name of the Coal Board; to extend certain financial commitments arising out of the disastrous dispute of 1984–85; and to facilitate the recognition of the Union of Democratic Miners within the industry.
I wish to concentrate on the third of those objectives, although I shall need to say a few words about the first two. I want to do that partly because that was the area which, it has been suggested, was not debated in another place and partly because there are a number of matters that we should make clear about the Opposition's attitude to the Bill's third objective. Nevertheless, let us turn to the Bill's first aim—the Coal Board's change of name.
The Secretary of State in another place—I am bound to say that the noble Viscount failed to explain to me at least why it was necessary to change its name—said that the change of name was for sound commercial and marketing reasons. He said that it was to add to the marketing attractiveness of the product. We can call a product what we like. It has nothing to do with the company's name. If one buys a good raincoat, one asks for Burberry; one does not ask for a GUS coat. No one knows what became of Mr. Benson and Mr. Hedges; no one knows whether Mr. Kipling ever existed; and no one knows how many names Mr. Rupert Murdoch has. One can call one's product what one likes. The name is changed all the time. In few places is there an identity between the name of the product and the name of the company. In most private enterprises there could not be.
Sir Ian MacGregor started calling the Coal Board's products products of British Coal back in 1985. There was no need for a statute then and there is no need for a statute now. If the Government did not want to do other things, they would not be asking us to do this.
Secondly, there is the Bill's aim to extend certain financial commitments. The Opposition's view in another place was that the size, the distribution and form of those payments and provisions made clear to them the intention of the board and the Government to continue the industry's run-down. They are continuing to plan for more redundancies; they are continuing to carry forward what we have always regarded as the disastrous best-seams policy. We still

407
believe that if the Government were to survive long enough they would be setting the scene for the industry's eventual privatisation.
I know that at the end of his speech the noble Viscount said that that was not the case. But I noticed that when he talked about the commercial uplands and the onward march of the industry, he did not say that it would be a public industry when it became more commercially viable. We say that at the very least the Government are leaving that option open.
I come to the Bill's third aim—to facilitate the recognition within the industry of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (Clauses 5 to 8). Those are essentially enabling clauses. They allow the UDM to be represented on the industry's ancillary bodies. The first point that I want to make is that the Opposition have at no time proposed and are at no time proposing to oppose that development. It is the logical consequence of the board's decision to recognise the UDM for bargaining purposes. Given the subsequent legal decision in May 1986, that decision conforms with that. There is a difference between us. The difference between us on the introduction of those clauses, which we do not oppose, is that we do not exult about this development.
We regard the break up of the natural, hardly won and hardly fought for miners' unity as a disaster. It is perhaps a necessary consequence of the Bill, but it remains a disaster. The division in disunity is true. Shakespeare said:
"'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity; and pity 'tis 'tis true."
That is why we have to have this part of the Bill.
That brings me to the second point, which was made in another place, although I do not believe that the Government took the point. The logic of doing what the Government propose to do, and the logic of doing what the Coal Board did on its own initiative, is to break up the long-established system of the exclusive bargaining rights which the NUM has had in the industry since nationalisation. We must think that through. We must think through the logic of the recognition of a minority union at national level and at area level in the case of Nottingham. It has implications. We sought to argue in another place that it has implications at unit level. The sole point at issue between us and the Government in this Bill is that the Government and the Coal Board, or British Coal if the noble Viscount prefers, have not fully accepted the implications of what they have done. The Government and the Coal Board have moved from a system of exclusive bargaining rights to a system of equal rights for the UDM at national, and where appropriate at area level. We suggest that nothing effective has been done at local or unit level to carry that basic change of policy into effect.
It was to remedy that position that the Member for Salford, East in another place moved a new clause in Committee on 11th December (col. 124 of the Official Report). My main question—indeed my sole question—to the Government tonight is whether they have thought again about their opposition to that new clause. It was based on Article 4 of ILO Convention 98, which so far as I know has not yet been revoked by the Government, the aim of which is to protect the
408
rights of minorities, especially those of recognised minority unions in majority areas.
The object of the clause is to grant freedom to represent members and service members; to grant equal bargaining rights; and to do that via a return to the provisions of the old conciliation scheme, including rights of arbitration as under that scheme. As I say, we are asking the Government, because we wish to come forward in Committee with a similar new clause, to think again.
The Government's reply in another place, as I understand it, was that the provision of the new clause moved by the Labour spokesman was not necessary because everything that is asked for is being done already. I hope that the Government will argue that way tonight and in Committee, because we believe that we can prove this is not the case. Examples were given, and further examples can be given, of activists in the Nottingham and south Midlands—members of the National Union of Mineworkers—where the UDM is recognised who have been discriminated against for trade union activity. Mr. McGinty of Merton and Mr. Wetton of Bevercotes were mentioned specifically by my honourable friend in another place.
The board's reply, as I understand it, is that certain restricted rights do exist at unit level, that the NUM can make representations on local issues but that it cannot negotiate, and that, if individuals of the union are involved in grievances, then they can be present as "a friend". To paraphrase A. A. Milne, that is not what Tigger calls bargaining rights, and that is not what the NUM enjoyed in those areas before the recognition of the UDM. The final point to make is that what we are suggesting—this was the central difficulty with the Secretary of State in another place, because I do not think that he took it on board—is as much in the interests of the UDM as of the NUM. The UDM is in a majority in some areas and a minority in other units; and in other places, for example, in Derbyshire and the Midlands, it would be a beneficiary of our proposals. What we are suggesting is that both unions should have minority rights, in particular in those units where they have a significant membership alongside majority unions. We are saying that this is the automatic, natural and logical consequence of a move from a system of sole bargaining rights to a system of parallel unionism.
I should like to finish by saying a word about the attitude that I would adopt and that I think my party would adopt to the trade union principles in the mining industry. In my experience, nothing winkles out the true friend of trade unionism like reactions to a breakaway. It is analogous to, although it is not the same as, the attitude of a believer in a marriage to the knowledge and news that one of the parties has left home. The true friend of trade unionism, like the true friend of the instutition of marriage, laments such a development. He hopes, sometimes in the face of all the evidence, that there can be an eventual reconciliation. It may take time, there may have to be changes, instructions, policies, but he hopes that in time there will be reconciliation. That is what he hopes. What he fears is not that there will not be reconciliation but that there will be endless mutual recrimination which will degenerate into an

409
interminable war, a mutual hatred, which even divorce and legal separation does not end in the case of marriage and even the foundation of a breakaway does not reconcile in the case of a trade union.
Yet experience suggests—this is where I come back to the Bill—that are some cases where it is possible to have separation and even divorce without endless war; that, given time, if other interested parties can learn to live with the system and if they can act in an impartial way between the warrring factions, a middle way is possible. There are many examples of this in trade union history. The Union of Communication Workers is a successful example today of a breakaway which eventually after a very bitter period rejoined the parent union to the benefit of all. The National Union of Public Employees is an example of the middle way, a union that maintained its independence, eventually achieved good relations with other unions, was prepared to accept such things as the Bridlington agreement and, therefore, was able to enter the Trade Union Congress.
For myself, I still hope that the miners will achieve the first solution, reconciliation, but I certainly hope, and I hope that the Government too hope—I thought that the noble Viscount tonight expressed that hope—that they will avoid the third alternative. That is what we are really about tonight. We are giving the Government the benefit of the doubt over the Bill. We are not ready to assume that they wish to perpetuate and stoke up the war between the UDM and the NUM. We are not ready to assume that they are taking one side or the other. We assume that they are trying to help in an alternative—perhaps alternative two if not alternative one—but in that case they must give a much more friendly and considered response to the new clause put down by my friend in another place.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too should like to express my appreciation of the constructive manner in which the noble Viscount presented the Bill. It comes to us at a time when the coal industry is recovering impressively from the aftermath of the long-running strike to which both noble Lords referred. I believe it is important that the industry should be given every support in these endeavours. It is from that point of view that I shall make a few comments on the contents of the Bill.
To take first the change of name, I listened carefully to what both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had to say about this. For my own part I cannot help feeling a sentiment of nostalgic regret. The name of the National Coal Board was proudly hoisted aloft at every mine in the industry on 1st January 1947, when nationalisation began. The letters "NCB" have remained synonymous with the coal industry ever since. They have been woven into the tapestry of post-war history. The letters will always remain historically associated with the industry. I am saddened that when, as it certainly will, the industry eventually moves from success to success, it will not still proudly bear that designation. However, it has now been decided that the name shall be changed, and I am sure that we all wish the industry success under its new name.
410
I should like to deal briefly with the problem created by the divisions within the unions, because the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has concentrated on that aspect. I can only express regret again that this situation should have arisen. I believe that this is commonly felt by all parties. I feel that the steps now being taken are probably inevitable. I think that there is a good deal of force in what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had to say. I personally hope that the time will come before too long when the union can be reunited and when everybody in the industry can be fully reunited.
I should like to reserve my main comments for the financial provisions, and particularly the provision to extend the deficit grant arrangements. I was pleased to see that provision, because the coal industry is still going through a process of recovery. The hope, I know, has been expressed by Sir Robert Haslam that that should be completed within a space of about two years. Let us hope that he is right. In the meantime it is certain that the industry must continue to invest substantially in its increasing new and developing assets. This is vital to the economy of the country. Let us bear in mind that as far ahead as one can visualise the coal industry will remain a major British enterprise. It will be vital in the energy mix. It is sometimes forgotten that it will be an important stimulator of innovation in a large supporting industrial sector, particularly the engineering sector.
It is for that reason, therefore, that I feel that we should go beyond the implications of this Bill in supporting the industry. It is one thing to be producing the coal as efficiently as possible but the coal has to have markets. The market situation of the coal industry at the present time is that more than two-thirds of its product go to one customer; namely, the electricity generating industry. Therefore it will be of vital importance that its role in regard to that customer should be clarified.
My personal view is that if it had not been for the long-running Sizewell inquiry we should by now have had one or two more coal-fired stations committed. I hope that we shall be able to debate that report before final decisions are reached, just as it has been agreed that it should be debated in another place. I hope that the eventual outcome will be—whatever the decision reached with regard to more nuclear stations—that the coal industry will have its fair share of new generating capacity.
There is one other aspect to which I should like to refer. The NCB, when it submitted its evidence to the energy committee in another place in January 1986, said that the board believed there was a strong case for government funding to develop advanced coal-fired generation techniques which held out the prospect of combining environmental acceptability with increased efficiency, and that those technologies received little funding compared with expenditure on R & D for nuclear energy. This is a vitally important aspect. The promise that new coal-fired technologies hold out are considerable, but in my opinion have not been sufficiently funded in the past. I hope that that will be remedied in the future.
I should like to conclude by saying that I support the purposes of this Bill but that I consider that those

411
purposes should be complemented by some of the other measures that I have mentioned.
8.43 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, although the debate this evening has of necessity been brief it has nonetheless been interesting and stimulating. I can assure both noble Lords that I shall read Hansard with great interest tomorow. If I do not answer all their questions this evening I shall certainly write to them. I should like to thank both the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Ezra, for their valuable contributions. While the coal industry is not the normal field of interest for the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, he brought to the subject his enormous experience in trade union affairs. I shall do my best to answer the points that he raised shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has as always in debates on coal given us the benefit of his unique knowledge of the industry. However, I do not think that this evening is quite the occasion to go into the debate on the future power stations. I notice that the noble Lord brought in Sizewell towards the end of his speech. I assure him that I shall have taken note of what he said.
The Bill before your Lordships tonight is a straightforward one. Its intentions are clear. Outside this Chamber it has been called a privatisation Bill, a pit closure Bill and a harbinger of large-scale redundancies. It is none of these things. As I indicated in my remarks at the beginning of this debate, it is a Bill which enables British Coal to welcome the future and to welcome it with a new name, a properly represented workforce and sufficient funds to get through the present transitional phase.
Both the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Ezra, asked about the change of name. I enjoyed the play that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made with the name and with other names that he thought might have been used. However, I must tell the noble Lord that, contrary to some Opposition spokesmen in another place, the Government did not need to legislate to bring the statutory name into line with the trading name. It was, however, British Coal itself which preferred its trading name to be recognised in statute and believed that this would enhance a new image that it aims to establish, emphasising the commercial nature of its business and the fact that it is producing coal which is British.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised the question of the conciliation machinery within the coal industry. In my opening remarks I outlined the reasons why it was unnecessary to make provision in this Bill for ensuring participation in the industry's conciliation machinery. In answer to his question about the Government's attitude to the new clause proposed in another place, I have to tell the noble Lord that nothing has happened to change that attitude. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of this Bill give to thousands of men in the industry basic rights in the management of affairs which have enormous influence on their lives, towards which they contribute financially and which are outside the scope of their normal terms and conditions of employment.
412
I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of regret that we have to legislate. None of the rights for which we are regretfully having to legislate here is anywhere denied to the NUM, whether they are in a majority or a minority. Nothing in the Bill has anything to do with negotiation, collective bargaining or terms and conditions of employment, simply because existing legislation establishes for those matters the rights of the union concerned. The detail of the machinery to be set up under that legislation is quite correctly a matter for employer and employee. I am advised by British Coal that discussions are being held with the unions on their proposals for new conciliation machinery.
I believe that that more or less covers the points raised by noble Lords. I shall read Hansard tomorrow.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 10) Order 1986
8.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th December be approved. [7th Report of the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 10) Order be agreed to.
On 30th October last year, your Lordships debated and approved the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 8) Order 1986. A mark and release scheme has since been introduced which enables sheep to be tested for levels of radioactivity. Those which pass the test are able to enter the food chain and their slaughter is permitted. The order before us is the current one to provide the necessary authority for the slaughter of these sheep. It also consolidates and corrects some minor drafting errors which were made in the No. 8 order when changes to it were made by subsequent amendment orders. These errors had no practical effect on the control over the movement and slaughter of sheep which ensures that no sheep with unacceptably high levels of radioactivity reaches the food chain. It is, however, right that they should be corrected.
My noble friend Lord Belstead explained in October the background to these orders and the reasons for making them. I do not propose to restate these today but rather to give a short summary of events as they affected Scotland.
The accident at Chernobyl, which occurred on 26th April last year, was the worst of its kind in history. It required a very speedy response. The radioactive cloud reached Britain over the weekend 2nd to 4th May and testing on milk products, grass, vegetables and water was increased between 3rd and 7th May. Radioiodine gave the earliest cause for concern and since this is concentrated in milk, the latter was the subject of much attention. Fortunately this radionuclide has a relatively short life and there were no untoward results revealed in this testing. Other products were soon being examined. Sheep meat in the slaughterhouses

413
was first monitored on 28th May and gave no cause for concern. Tests on grazing lambs, however, revealed unacceptably high levels of radioactivity which in turn led to restrictions being placed on the movement and slaughter of sheep in certain areas in England and Wales on 20th June and in Scotland on 24th June.
The restrictions in Scotland applied originally to Dumfries and Galloway, Arran and parts of Ross and Cromarty. They were extended to include North Uist on 30th July and South Uist on 13th August. Parts of the high ground in Strathclyde which bordered the high ground in Dumfries and Galloway were also made subject to restrictions on 30th July, and this additional area of designation was able to be kept reasonably small.
In addition to the evidence we had from our own sampling, we were able to take into account weather data, the grass and herbage sampling undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and others, and the results of the intensive milk sampling during May in determining the areas on which we should concentrate our efforts and resources. A programme of slaughterhouse monitoring was put in place simultaneously as a long-stop against contaminated foodstuffs reaching the food chain. There was only one situation that gave cause for concern in the slaughterhouse monitoring and this led to the imposition of the restrictions in North Uist, where it occurred.
Areas have been progressively released from restrictions since mid-July as a result of the intensive sampling programme that we instigated and these areas can be seen in Schedule 2 to this order. Schedule 1 shows the areas still designated and these are the ones from which blue marked sheep have been removed under the mark and release scheme announced on 13th August. The scheme was introduced to help the farmers move their sheep because feed was running short and it gave the authority for the sheep to be moved to uncontaminated ground before the areas from which the sheep came were cleared.
These blue marked sheep are being prevented from being slaughtered in the interests of public health until their levels of radioactivity have declined to a sufficiently low level. A programme of individual testing of the sheep was introduced on 18th December and to date out of over 6,400 tested in Scotland not one has failed. However, until we are satisfied that all blue marked sheep in Britain are clear, sheep which have not passed the test cannot be slaughtered and the areas from which they come must remain designated—hence the need to continue the current order.
It is right that I should pay tribute to individual farmers and the National Farmers' Union in Scotland for their forbearance, understanding and patience throughout the monitoring exercise. The restrictions came at the time just before the lambs were due to be moved off their summer pasture and this could have been disastrous for many farmers. The Government were well aware of this and knew that there was likely to be a need for some financial compensation. We introduced a three-tier compensation scheme which has been generally welcomed by the industry and I think that they represent a fair outcome for both farmer and taxpayer.
So far as this year's lambs are concerned and whether it will be safe to move them and sheep into the food chain this year, the position is being monitored carefully. The levels of caesium 134 and 137 which together give greatest concern in meat have remained stubbornly persistent on the high ground. Studies are under way to help us understand the movement and behaviour of radio caesium in upland pastures and in sheep. But it is hoped that the new grass, following winter snow and rain which will wash the caesium away and dilute it, will show very low levels of contamination and that no further controls will be necessary, Furthermore, the new lambs will not go to market immediately they are born and there will be a period of some months during which appropriate steps, if necessary, can be taken to protect the public. We shall not shirk from taking any steps thought necessary, guided of course by the facts the situation presents, and the objective scientific assessments at our disposal.
Chernobyl has been one of the most far reaching peacetime emergencies we have experienced in recent years. We are learning the many lessons from it. We had to take prompt action, and we did, when we heard about the disaster and all along our paramount consideration has been to protect the public.
The current restrictions embodied in the order before your Lordships will not I hope be necessary for much longer but we have to continue until we are sure that all blue marked sheep are suitable for human consumption. The continuation of this order is necessary to ensure that and to continue our protection of the public. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 18th December be approved.— (Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining a somewhat complicated order and also to apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is unfortunately unable to be here tonight. However, he gave me a number of points to raise, some of which have already been dealt with by the noble Lord—for instance, the consultation with the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the fact that compensation is being continued to be paid. We have all learned some lessons from Chernobyl. The second point that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie wished to raise concerns the number of sheep which are still affected. I heard the Minister giving the figures which I shall read with interest. I am very pleased to agree to the order going through.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1987
8.57 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1987, laid before the House on 26th January 1987, be approved.

415
This order is made under Section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. It enables effect to be given to Annex II and Protocol I to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. These have in fact been amended firstly by the Protocol of 1978 and, secondly, by amendments adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation on 5th December 1985.
Four sets of regulations will be required under this order, to come into force on 6th April 1987, which will apply in general to United Kingdom ships wherever they may be and to other ships while they are in the United Kingdom or the territorial waters thereof.
The first set of regulations will cover the reporting of pollution incidents arising from ships. They will require reports to be made on all actual or probable discharges of marine pollutants in packaged form. They will also require such reports on all actual or probable discharges of oil or noxious liquid substances in excess of those permitted. Permissible discharges are detailed in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983 and the proposed Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 1987 (which will be made under this order which I shall now explain).
The second set of regulations will cover the prevention and control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk by ships. These substances are mainly chemicals but other noxious liquid substances are included. They will include prohibitions and restrictions on discharging tank washings into the sea, the requirement for my department to approve the necessary procedures and arrangements for ships carrying these substances, methods of control and construction, equipment, survey and certification requirements for such ships.
The third and fourth set of regulations will make it mandatory for chemical tankers carrying these noxious liquid substances in bulk, to comply with internationally agreed codes which cover the construction and equipment of such ships.
In making these regulations under this order, the United Kingdom will be fulfilling its international obligations with respect to the prevention and control of marine pollution, and I commend this order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining this order. There are only two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord. Any order which carries out international obligations, particularly of this kind, would naturally receive the support of the Opposition. Reference is made to the reporting of incidents, or the threat of possible incidents that might involve pollution. To whom will the reporting be made? I have particularly in mind countries across the Channel and Ireland. Will some arrangement be made whereby both countries will be informed?
416
The Minister also referred to the fact that the order may have some effect on the construction of ships. As I understand that the order is to take effect from 6th April this year, have discussions with the General Council of British Shipping been such that there will be a guarantee that that could take effect if structural alterations have to be made?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome to the order. To turn to reporting, the noble Lord asked particularly about our near European neighbours. Of course, we operate very closely with them under a number of conventions. The mechanism will be the same for this reporting as it is at present for the reporting of oil discharges. This extends the mechanism at present in force for oil discharges to cover the requirements for other particular types of chemicals. The report is made to the nearest coastal state by the fastest means possible. These guidelines will be developed by means of an M Notice. It is really an extension to the existing arrangements.
So far as concerns consultations with the GCBS, yes, there will be certain requirements regarding ship construction. We have consulted fully with the industry and also with the unions because the masters of the ships are responsible for some of this reporting. Those consultations have been satisfactory. Although I cannot give a positive answer to the noble Lord, I very much hope that all ships will be able to comply with these regulations when they come into force.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Amendments to the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft amendment laid before the House on 17th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft amendment laid before the House on 17th December be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.

  CONTINENTAL SHELF: RECOGNITION CRITERIA
  CONTINENTAL SHELF: RECOGNITION CRITERIA
  NAVAL ACTIVITIES IN EUROPEAN WATERS, 1987
  NAVAL ACTIVITIES IN EUROPEAN WATERS, 1987
  MAIN STREET, BROADSEA: LISTED BUILDING
  MAIN STREET, BROADSEA: LISTED BUILDING
  SEALS: NERC COMMITTEE RESEARCH REVIEW ROLE
  SEALS: NERC COMMITTEE RESEARCH REVIEW ROLE
  FLOOD DEFENCE GRANTS
  FLOOD DEFENCE GRANTS