Sitting of 10 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  INCOME TAX
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 1986 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order 1986 be made in the form of drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
GEORGE DONALD EVANS AND DEBORAH JANE EVANS (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
JOHN ERNEST ROLFE AND FLORENCE IVEEN ROLFE (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
MASONIC TRUST FOR GIRLS AND BOYS BILL
Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Dental Charges
    Mr. Weetchasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department has studied the effect of the current level of dental charges upon patients seeking dental treatment.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): We continue to monitor on a regular basis the demand for dental treatment. The number of patients coming forward for dental treatment continues to increase.
    Mr. Weetch: Has the Secretary of State studied closely the statistics from the Dental Estimates Board showing that the current level of charges is a serious disincentive for people seeking dental treatment? Is he aware that the
    144
    number of fillings has dropped by about 5 million, with commensurate falls elsewhere? Is he further aware that the associations within the dental profession take a serious view of that? Will he seek an early meeting with the General Dental Practitioners Association and give some assurances?
    Mr. Fowler: I have studied what has been said and I think that the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the figures. Courses of treatment have increased from 28·5 million in 1979 to 32 million now. It is certainly true that the number of fillings has gone down, but surely that is good, because it is a sign of better dental health rather than less treatment.
    Mr. Pawsey: What safeguards has my right hon. Friend introduced to ensure that less well off and deprived people obtain effective dental treatment?
    Mr. Fowler: There are a whole series of exemptions from dental charges, including those under 18, those under 19 and in full-time education, expectant mothers, those who have a baby under the age of one and 'those who receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement. In total, about 46 per cent. of chargeable courses of treatment are provided free.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware of the opinion held by the British Medical Association and other professional bodies that the prohibitive cost of dental treatment is deterring some people from seeking treatment? Will he ask those bodies for that evidence, consider it carefully and take action if necessary?
    Mr. Fowler: There is no such evidence. The evidence clearly shows that courses of treatment have increased. That is clear from all the figures, including the latest figures for the period from January to December 1986 which show an increase of 3 per cent. in courses of treatment. The evidence is there and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers it.

    Consultants (Merit Awards)
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual cost of merit award payments to National Health Service consultants; and if he has any plans to review the system.
    Mr. Fowler: The actual amounts paid out in distinction awards are not collected centrally since the award holder is paid pro rata to his sessional commitments to the National Health Service. The current value of awards recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body for Great Britain is £56·8 million, of which it is estimated that some £47 million will be paid. We have no plans at present to review the system.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with more than 6,000 merit awards now being paid annually and with the top award being worth more than £27,000, thus virtually doubling a consultant's pay, it is in the interests of the public, the patients and the profession that more information should be readily available? It is time for people to know the by whom, the to whom, the how and the why of merit awards. That would end the secrecy and suspicion.
    Mr. Fowler: I understand entirely what my hon. Friend is saying about the issue of confidentiality, which has been

    145
    a long established rule, not only in the medical profession, but in the Civil Service. Consultants can inspect the record of merit awards, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although consultants are often the leaders of medical teams, those teams depend upon the nursing arrangements for their effectiveness? As consultants are already extremely well rewarded, is it not time that merit awards were extended to senior nurses?
    Mr. Fowler: I certainly agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend has said. One of the reasons why the Government have set up the independent Pay Review Body for Nurses is to allow distinctions and differentials that seek to reward the merit and long service of particular nurses. I shall bear my hon. Friends comments in mind.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State not perfectly well aware that the merit award scheme has long been total nonsense? We need to know who awards them, who sets them and, above all, why. Why does the Secretary of State not tackle what is in grave danger of becoming an abuse?
    Mr. Fowler: With respect, I do not think that the scheme is in grave danger of becoming an abuse. It is a long established system, as it was under the Labour Government of which I believe the hon. Lady was a member. An incentive to maintain a high level of distinction is provided by a rising scale of awards. I cannot believe that anybody could frankly or sensibly contest that proposition.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when consultants are overtly critical of the National Health Service, and often manipulate their patient lists to exert pressure, we are entitled to know what they are getting from the NHS at the same time as they are demanding more and more resources from the NHS?
    Mr. Fowler: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and in one or two respects I have some sympathy with him, but two thirds of consultants do not receive any merit awards.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that merit awards are a secretive and elitist system which represents a serious distortion of NHS expenditure? Is he further aware that the same amount of money could be used to fund an extra 1,750 consultants to meet the consultant shortage, an extra 3,500 junior hospital doctors so that operations would no longer have to be cancelled due to the lack of doctors, or an extra 20,000 nurses so that awards would no longer have to be closed due to the lack of nurses? Why do the Government always favour tiny rich minorities at the expense of the general good?
    Mr. Fowler: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would somehow work some of his well developed conspiracy theories into this. If he feels so strongly about the system, why did he do nothing about it when he was a member of the Labour Government?

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Raynsfordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many responses he has had from local authorities to his consultation document on housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): We have had a
    146
    number of initial queries and reactions on specific aspects of the detailed proposals issued in the form of draft regulations. Formal comments representing local authority views are submitted by the local authority associations. We have asked for their full responses by 6 March.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recall that his Department's last attempt to make changes in the housing benefit scheme resulted in what was described as
    "the worst administrative fiasco in the history of the welfare state"?
    Given the present reservations of all local authority associations about the lack of time to resolve the outstanding issues and the inadequate implementation subsidies, is the hon. and learned Gentleman not worried that the Government seriously risk repeating the disaster that occurred four years ago?
    Mr. Lyell: It is precisely to give local authorities time to consider the draft regulations and be prepared that we are consulting now. They will thus have the best part of a full year to prepare themselves before the regulations are in place.
    Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the grotesque scandal of Left-wing local authorities which always have to put up the rates but never seem able to collect rents. Where those rents include an element of housing benefit, and knowing that at some stage the Government will have to bail out those lunatic authorities, will my hon. and learned Friend take action to withhold that Government benefit and keep it for later purposes?
    Mr. Lyell: One aspect of the reforms that we are introducing is to enable local authorities to monitor the amount that they are spending, particularly on housing benefit, and provide incentives for them to do so.
    Mrs. Beckett: Can the Minister confirm that among the proposals that he has put to authorities is a proposal that the time limits which force people under 26 in board and lodgings to move every few weeks should be abolished? Can he explain why they are needed in 1987 if they will not be needed in 1988?
    Mr. Lyell: The new system of income support combined with housing benefit could provide a good framework which would overcome the present difficulties, but part of the system is the careful monitoring of the amount that housing authorities spend on housing benefit and the level of rents which they are prepared to support.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Has the Minister initiated contact with the local authorities and urged them to have rents registered where private landlords are overcharging in the knowledge that the tenants receive housing benefit and thus have no personal interest in registering a fair rent?
    Mr. Lyell: Part of the changes will give local authorities greater opportunities to monitor and control the amount of housing benefit which they are prepared to pay if they think that rents in any sector are excessive.

    Chemical Weapons
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information and training is available to his Department's staff on the properties of chemical weapons and protective measures.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Health

    147
    authorities have responsibility to ensure that plans are laid to deal with major incidents arising within their boundaries. This includes any involving toxic chemicals. Specialised advice is available from the National Poisons Information Service on a 24-hour basis. Guidance on handling and transportation of chemical casualties was sent to chief ambulance officers last year.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is she satisfied that the degree of co-operation between local authorities and her Department is adequate to ensure sufficient protection for the general public in the event of a chemical escape or attack?
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend will know that studies are under way led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Health authorities are being advised that further guidance will be considered in the light of those studies.

    Abortions (Minors)
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances minors may be invited to give written consent to an abortion and to a general anaesthetic for such abortion, without parental knowledge; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): Written consent may be given in the circumstances described if, in the judgment of the doctor concerned, it is in the patient's best medical interest and she has sufficient maturity and understanding to appreciate what is involved.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Dose my hon. Friend think that that squares with our principles of the defence of the family, family responsibility, parental responsibility and protection of the child?
    Mr. Newton: I hope my hon. Friend will accept that those very points are emphasised both in the current guidance from the Department and in the guidance issued by the General Medical Council. It would be a rash person who would want an absolute rule in these circumstances with no room for judgment, especially as the risk would be that a young person might end up receiving no advice.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case that parental approval must be obtained for a tonsil or adenoid operation on a minor, or even for the removal of a verruca? Does the Minister not feel that the removal of a child is even more important? How on earth can parents look after their children properly if they do not know the kind of ordeal that they have suffered?
    Mr. Newton: As I have said, the guidance issued by the Department and by the General Medical Council clearly shows the normal desirability of ensuring that parents are involved. I am advised that in circumstances where in the clinical judgment of the doctor it is appropriate to proceed otherwise that would cover the use of an anaesthetic.

    South-East Thames Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will intervene in the dispute within the South-East Thames regional health authority regarding the location for new radiotherapy equipment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Currie: The location for new radiotherapy equipment in South East Thames is the responsibility
    148
    primarily of the regional and the district health authorities. I am aware of the region's proposal, which has been the subject of full public consultation. If the regional health authority intends to proceed with the proposal and the relevant local community health councils continue to object, the matter will be referred to Ministers. I understand that the regional health authority will be considering the proposal at its meeting on 19 March.
    Mr. Warren: After four years, has not the time come for my hon. Friend to take action to provide the service that must be provided for patients who have been waiting for four years for the service to commence? Is it not time that the Government took an initiative?
    Mrs. Currie: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. He will know that £10 million is proposed to be spent to improve cancer therapy for patients in Kent and Sussex. We await the view of the regional health authority. If the community health council still objects, the matter will come to Ministers for a decision.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that the regional health authority's proposal allows, among other things, for a concentration of skilled staff, which I believe to be extremely important? Will she assure us that before she overturns the regional health authority's intentions she will consider the effects very carefully?
    Mrs. Currie: We are taking into account all the results of the consultation procedure. It is our view that whatever decisions are taken will be in the interests of all the people covered by that particular regional health authority.

    Occupational Deafness
    Mr. Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to extend the availability of industrial disablement benefit for occupational deafness.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): We have no immediate plans to do so, but the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is keeping the occupational deafness provisions under review and is expected to report further later this year. We will consider the matter then.
    Mr. Evans: While I am grateful for the fact that the council is to report, is the Minister aware that many hundreds of my constituents who suffer from loss of hearing as a result of industrial noise find it difficult to understand how can win a claim against their employer for industrial deafness and they find that they do not qualify for industrial injury benefit? Is that not perverse? Surely the Minister would want that position to be corrected.
    Mr. Major: I am aware of the particular problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and not least the problems that he has raised in relation to the glass industry. With regard to his specific point, however, there are different criteria governing the awards of industrial disability benefit and of damages in common law. One particular difference is the question of negligence. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the exclusion from benefit applied to people who suffer from occupational deafness applies to no other disability? Does he recognise that the two reasons for this outrageous discrimination are, first, the shortage of audiologists to

    149
    carry out the necessary testing and, secondly, the lack of political will? Will he do something about those two points please?
    Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman probably knows more about this matter than anyone in the House, and I take his point very seriously. It is perfectly true that there is a shortage of audiological resources within the National Health Service. The provision of funding for such resources is the direct responsibility of individual health authorities. I am certainly aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point and I am sympathetic to it.
    Mr. Holt: I am sure that none of us would want people to suffer deafness through their industrial occupation, especially in the furniture trade, in which I worked for 20 years. Will my hon. Friend ensure, however, that industrialists are not made to pay the penalty for people playing very loud music and using personal stereos which affect their hearing in later years?
    Mr. Major: I take my hon. Friend's point. We are concerned about occupational deafness. That is why we have extended the scheme on two or three occasions and why we keep it constantly under review.
    Mr. Loyden: Have not claimants faced a minefield when making claims relating to occupational deafness? I am blaming, not just the present Government, but successive Governments who have failed to deal with this ongoing problem. For example, in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry there are men in their 70s who have not been able to resolve this problem. Is it not time that something positive was done?
    Mr. Major: Part of the problem is the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) concerning the number of audiological technicians available. As I pointed out, we have two or three times extended the scope of the scheme in an endeavour to meet the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Community Care
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial provision he is making for community care in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: It is not possible to identify all community care expenditure with precision, but National Health Service expenditure on community health services in 1984–85 was £856 million, representing a real increase of nearly 30 per cent. since 1978–79. It is likely to have increased further since then, and to rise again in 1987–88, following the increased allocations to regional health authorities which have been announced. Sir Roy Griffiths has been asked to review the way in which public funds are used to support community care policy.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that there is considerable concern that unless sufficient financial resources are made available for community care this policy will not work? Will he also recognise that organisations such as Rescare and families of people in institutions such as Calderstones and Brockhall in Lancashire are concerned about the way in which the policy is working?
    Mr. Newton: I am aware of the concerns expressed by Rescare, with which my noble Friend the Under-Secretary
    150
    of State has had meetings. I am also aware of the concern, which we share, to ensure that the large sums of money being expended on community care are well spent. The Roy Griffiths exercise is designed to help us improve our capacity to ensure that.
    Mr. Galley: The principle of a locally based community care fund, with resources from local authorities and health authorities and an independent manager who would procure services from a variety of public and private agencies and then match services to individual needs, would seem to have much to recommend it. Will my hon. Friend examine that proposal carefully?
    Mr. Newton: I respect the source from which that suggestion comes, in view of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this sector. It is very much the kind of suggestion that Sir Roy Griffiths will be able to examine.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: In view of the importance of community care, when does the Minister expect those eligible to be released from long-stay mental hospitals will be evacuated, given the rate at which funds are being provided?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has a persistent tendency to ask me questions which he knows no Minister in his right mind would answer. [Interruption.] I am now subject to universal advice not to answer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Government policy is that people should not be removed from mental illness, mental handicap or other institutions without proper provision being made in the community. It is our persistent endeavour to ensure that that should not happen.
    Mr. Crouch: In view of the emphasis recently placed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the importance of community care in the treatment of AIDS, will my hon. Friend allocate additional funds for this part of the treatment? Will he further confirm the reports in The Times this morning that an additional and separate amount of £10 million is to be allocated to research seeking a cure for AIDS?
    Mr. Newton: It is for health authorities to determine how to use their allocations, including the extra AIDS allocations to three of the Thames regions announced last week. The point about community care is that further work is needed. As my hon. Friend will know, we are convening a conference towards the end of next month with the voluntary organisations, the churches and professional bodies to look at community care for AIDS cases. On the latter point, I cannot confirm any particular figure. We are discussing these matters, but we are considering initiating a different way of fostering research into AIDS.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission report on community care last month roundly condemned his policies as a £6 billion misallocation of public funds? What action is he therefore taking to stop his perverse anti-community care policy of flooding the private sector with public supplementary benefit money for residential care, while at the same time stopping or reducing community care by squeezing local authority social service budgets? Is he aware that there has been a 25 per cent. cut in mental illness and mental handicap hospital beds since 1979 and that many thousands of these people are now utterly neglected in the community?
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description, either of the Audit Commission report or of those Government policies which have significantly extended choice to many people who could not otherwise have afforded it. So far as his figures on beds are concerned, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to stop using those figures in this irresponsible way. He knows perfectly well that he is including in those figures, among other things, the beds that used to be occupied by the children in long-stay mental handicap hospitals who have been got out into better care in the community, and that is a policy which all of us support.

    Community Health Councils
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the intended role of community health councils and the experience of their activities in practice.
    Mrs. Currie: Community health councils are independent statutory bodies with a duty to represent the interests in the Health Service of the public in their districts. Within this broad framework CHCs decide for themselves how to go about their tasks, and we have no plans to change this system.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Will she accept from me that, given the operational role of the health authorities and the strategic role of the regions, some CHCs are struggling to find a role for themselves and resort to casting around to find things to complain about?
    Mrs. Currie: I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in deploring any suggestion that the CHCs were looking for something to do or would even dream of opposing for opposing's sake. In many parts of the country the CHCs have proved themselves to be extremely useful and valuable. We have no plans at the moment to abolish them or change them in any way.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not the case that community health councils were set up originally as watchdogs for the patients and that as a result of gross underfunding they have neither the bark nor bite any more?
    Mrs. Currie: No, I would not agree with that. The CHCs spend a substantial amount of money, about £35,000 per CHC—a total of nearly £7 million—just for the role that has been identified. As I said a moment ago, in many cases they have proved their worth.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that, far from looking for something to do, the community health council in my constituency is quite rightly criticising the Trent regional health authority for trying to shut down rural maternity units? Will she make sure that that is not a policy that is supported by her Department?
    Mrs. Currie: When a community health council objects to a major change, as proposed by the regional health authority and the district health authority, the matter must come to Ministers for consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that we give the closest consideration to each individual case.
    Mr. Corbett: Given that community health councils are closer to patients and their needs than either district or regional health authorities, can the Minister say why so little notice is taken of them by the health authorities at district or regional level?
    Mrs. Currie: As a former chairman of a health authority before I came to this House, I disagree with the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Royal College of Nurses
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when last the Minister for Health met Mr. Trevor Clay, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Newton: I last met the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing on 19 January as part of a series of informal meetings with the general secretaries of the professional nursing organisations. A very wide range of issues relating to the nursing profession were discussed.
    Mr. Pavitt: Now that the Minister has had a chance to study "Project 2000" from the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors, what action is he going to take, and when? In view of the shortage now occurring—in England last year 27,000 nurses left but only 22,000 trainee places were provided, making a shortfall of 5,000—will he, before ever again giving the figure of 73,000 more nurses in the NHS under his Government's regime, take out the untrained auxiliaries who are now counted in the total, and will he also deduct the difference between the 374½-hour week and the 40-hour week?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that we normally seek to give these figures as whole-time equivalents, which is the most realistic way to do it. On his main point, as he knows, I, as well as all the other Health Ministers, received "Project 2000" from the United Kingdom Central Council last week. I undertook as a matter of urgency to seek to produce a document around the end of this month on the basis of which we would consult health authorities and others about the proposals with a view to setting a deadline for consultation to finish about the end of July. I think the council recognises that that is a speedy time scale which illustrates the importance we attach to the issue.
    Mr. McCrindle: As my hon. Friend seeks to ensure that the net intake of nurses remains adequate for the purposes of the National Health Service, to what extent is consideration being given to stepping up the recruitment of those whose family responsibilities may well be reaching a conclusion and who would welcome the opportunity of being reabsorbed into the National Health Service?
    Mr. Newton: That is precisely one of the courses that we are urging health authorities to consider. As my hon. Friend will know, we have also set up, with the Equal Opportunities Commission, a special study known in the trade as managing the career break, which is designed to see how we can build up procedures which make it easier for people to come back to nursing in future.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept, and did he say to the general secretary of the Royal College, that nursing in London is in crisis? Of four district authorities, Riverside has over 600 vacancies, Bloomsbury and Paddington have 200 and 300 respectively, and my own authority, Lewisham and North Southwark, has over 300. Urgent action is needed. Agency nurses are not enough. What will the Minister do this year to make sure that there are enough nursing staff in London hospitals?
    Mr. Newton: The problem varies from one authority to another. We are urgently seeking better information with a view to judging what action can be taken by district health authorities. It will not, I think, be the same in all cases.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome warmly the action that the Government have taken in support of the nursing profession. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a severe problem of nurse wastage in the London area? Does he further accept that a contributory factor may well be the differential housing and transport costs for young nurses in London? Will he consider this again?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the pay review body is in operation, as it were, at this very moment. I have no doubt that this is one of the points to which its attention is being and will be drawn.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister take the opportunity to talk to Trevor Clay about the position in south Manchester, where the occupational health physician reported that there has been a massive increase in nervous debility caused by stress because of the staffing crisis for nurses?
    Mr. Newton: I am not aware of the study to which the hon. Member has referred, but I shall ask to see it.

    Hong Kong and Singapore
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a ministerial visit to Hong Kong and Singapore to observe Government policies on smoking.
    Mr. Fowler: I am prepared to make that sacrifice.
    Mr. Sims: In view of my right hon. Friend's heavy commitments, perhaps it would be just as well if he did not leave us again too soon. Is he aware that since 1973 there has been a complete ban on advertising tobacco products in Singapore, and that the Hong Kong Government are preparing legislation for a complete ban on all tobacco products? Since well over 1,000 people per week are dying prematurely from smoking-related diseases, does he think that we may have something to learn from policies in Hong Kong and Singapore on advertising, promotion, education and pricing of products? If my right hon. Friend cannot visit those countries, perhaps he could ask his officials to study their policies to see whether we have something to learn from them.
    Mr. Fowler: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. In fact, the United Kingdom has a favourable record in comparison with Hong Kong. On the reduction of smoking, the percentage reduction here is as good as, if not better than, those in Hong Kong and Singapore. Certainly the United Kingdom has stronger and more varied health warnings on cigarettes and has stronger and more comprehensive restrictions on advertising. Clearly I shall consider any other lessons from both Hong Kong and Singapore.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that there was great disappointment throughout the nation about the agreement reached by his hon. Friend the Minister for Sport—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with Singapore and Hong Kong, has it?
    Mr. Hughes: Yes, it has. On the arrangements for tobacco promotion, does the Secretary of State agree that the example set by Hong Kong and Singapore should be followed and that it is not satisfactory to wait for another few years before proper preventive medicine is practised by banning advertising here of tobacco and sport?
    Mr. Fowler: No, I do not think that. In the United Kingdom we have followed a voluntary policy. It is a subject that has been dealt with in public areas, for example, by those responsible for management in response to public calls. I do not find that the case for making advertising in all areas illegal is one that has yet been made out.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to introduce regulations to uprate the level of £35 a week of occupational pension above which unemployment benefit starts to be abated, as defined in section 5(1) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Major: We have no present plans to change the existing threshold. Future changes will be considered in the light of other competing demands for social security funds.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that it is now six years since that level was set and that since then some hundreds of thousands of workers, men of 60 and over, including not least those Talbot car workers in Coventry who have asked me to raise the matter, have paid national insurance, yet now, on the point of retirement, because they have an occupational pension, are denied unemployment benefit? Why does not the Minister, if he will not abolish that regulation, at least uprate the figure by inflation to the £47 it ought to be today instead of £35? Why is it that if a millionaire has £100,000 of investment income unemployment benefit is not affected, but if a worker has £35.10p occupational pension that affects his unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Major: The principle of the offset is one that previous Labour Governments twice tried to introduce, although unsuccessfully. The offset seeks to reflect the fact that occupational pensions form a retirement income, and a retirement income is not wholly consistent with people being non-retired and available for work.
    Mr. Stern: Will my hon. Friend be very cautious about proceeding along the road indicated by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)? Does he agree that, as this country moves closer towards the four-pension household as being the norm, the aim should be to reduce dependence on benefits rather than increase it?
    Mr. Major: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am always cautious about following advice from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).

    Speech Therapists
    Mr. Frank Cookasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about establishing improved salaries for speech therapists.
    Mr. Newton: There have been numerous representations about this subject, which is a matter for Whitley council negotiations.
    Mr. Cook: The Minister will know that in the National Health Service there is a serious shortfall in the level of salaries paid to speech therapists as compared with those paid to other graduate professionals. The Minister should know that that shortfall can amount to as much as 70 per cent. The Minister will agree, I think, that the level of responsibility in no way justifies that differential. How can he justify that kind of situation?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, accept that I, too, very much value the important work of speech therapists within the Health Service, and indeed elsewhere. He will also be aware that the speech therapists, at their own request, were not included in the review body provisions when they were set up. It remains the case, therefore, that these are matters for negotiation within the Whitley council.
    Ms. Richardson: When will the Minister realise that the efforts of people such as speech therapists, who are making cases for equal pay for work of equal value, are seriously impaired by the cumbersome and obstructive nature of the procedure? When will he ask his right hon. Friend to simplify the procedure so that people such as these can claim equal pay, and women attracted into speech therapy may find it a rewarding profession in a monetary way as well as in every other way?
    Mr. Newton: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Lady has said, but she will understand that I would not wish to comment further on these cases as I understand that appeals have been lodged with the employment appeals tribunal.

    Matrons
    Mr. Lordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to reintroduce the role of matron into hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: Health authorities are free to use the title matron if they wish to do so.
    Mr. Lord: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a certain amount of concern that record spending on the National Health Service at the moment is not necessarily coming through in terms of record patient care? Bearing in mind the unique tradition of the old matron in terms of understanding consultants, doctors and nurses—all her staff— and patients, as well as her ability to control supplies very carefully, will my hon. Friend reconsider reintroducing this invaluable post into our hospitals?
    Mr. Newton: The role of matron in different institutions varies quite widely, but I accept my hon. Friend's point that it is important for there to be clear-cut lines of managerial responsibility. That is what we think we are achieving at the moment.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Where would the matron stand in the pecking order, with the proliferation of general managers now being appointed in every hospital throughout the country?
    Mr. Newton: Where a matron stood in the pecking order would depend on precisely what responsibilities she was asked to fulfil. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that quite a number of nurses have become general managers at both district and unit level. That is something that we are anxious to see.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Disabled People
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government intend to implement in full the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Act which was given Royal Assent on 8 July 1986.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): It is hoped that sections 4, 8, 9 and 10 can be brought into operation by next April and section 11 during the course of 1987. However, the provisions of the Act, which have significant resource implications, can be brought into effect only as and when these resources can be provided.
    Mr. Clarke: How can the Prime Minister justify her Government's failure to introduce a single order or to set aside an extra penny for the implementation of this Act? Does she accept that people will not take lightly a decision to set aside the clearly expressed will of the House, to treat it with contempt and to do so in the knowledge that the needs of disabled persons and those who care for them are being sacrificed on the high altar of pre-election tax cuts?
    The Prime Minister: During the passage of the Bill we consistently made it clear that it would be wrong to impose extra financial burdens on local and health authorities until sufficient resources were available. That remains the position. The Labour Government — [Interruption] —faced a similar difficulty after they had passed the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. When a Labour Government later came in they took no steps to provide local authorities with the resources to put the Act into effect. The hon. Gentleman says that we have not provided money. May I point out to him that increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by about 75 per cent., allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion.
    Mr. Favell: Referring to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was dealt with by The Times this morning—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should look at the Order Paper.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Lady not recall the Minister of State saying last July that he wanted to bring the provisions of this Act into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is by the autumn of 1986? Given the fact that absolutely nothing relevant to this Act has been allocated in any of the rate support grant settlements, will the Prime Minister now tell us where she thinks that the extra money to implement those sections of the Act relating to school leavers is supposed to come from? In her refusal so far to honour her Government's commitments, is she not being mean and evasive with the disabled?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated the sections that we hope can be brought into operation by next April, with section 11 during the course of 1987. I have also indicated that, although we would all wish to do more, a former Labour Government — [Interruption] Of course, hon. Members do not like to hear this reply because it is true. A former Labour Goverment who passed the Chronically

    157
    Sick and Disabled Persons Act were also in a similar position. The last Labour Government did not, in five years of government—[interruption]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a rare definitive question on the Order Paper and I think that the whole House wants to hear the answer.
    The Prime Minister: The last Labour Government, during five years in office, did not take steps to provide local authorities with resources to put the Act into effect. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give him the whole excellent record of this Government in giving extra help to the disabled I shall do so. We increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by 75 per cent., after allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion. We have increased the real value of the mobility allowance and the new severe disablement allowance. The Opposition hate to hear that because it is true and shows us in a much better light than them.
    Mr. Kinnock: The sum of which we speak in relation to sections 5 and 6 of that Act and the disabled school leavers amounts, by the best calculations, to no more than £50 million. The right hon. Lady's lectures about the availability of resources comes ill from a Prime Minister who is allegedly contemplating a give-away of £3 billion in the Budget. While all the voluntary organisations concerned with the disabled welcome any progress made under any Government, why does the right hon. Lady not heed the view that they express about this Act when they say that if the Government do not move now the future of those young people leaving school in 1988 and 1989 will be seriously and adversely affected? That is not the voice of congratulation: it is the voice of justified suspicion. Why does the Prime Minister not listen to it and do her duty by the disabled, instead of dodging?
    The Prime Minister: We do not need any lectures from a former Labour supporter of the last Labour Government, who did not begin to do anything like as well for the disabled as we have done. The right hon. Gentleman's second point was about helping people into jobs. As far as the disabled are concerned—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: —we have extended help through the Manpower Services Commission which has meant that last year over 77,000 people were placed in work or on the community programme. That is all help for the disabled.

    Engagements
    Dame Jill Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and attended the memorial service for the first Earl of Stockton. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong public feeling that court sentences are too often so lenient that they do not deter and thus offer no protection whatever to the public? Since guidelines laid down even by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor on this matter have consistently been ignored by judges, will my
    158
    right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to consider the possibility of supporting a suggestion that inadequate sentences be referred to an appeal court?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of strong feelings about certain sentences. In general, the guidelines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice have been followed. However, there appear to be some cases where that is not so, and they have given rise to great concern. As my hon. Friend is aware, clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill would give a power to the Attorney-General to refer a particular sentence to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of that court, for it to say, not what the sentence should have been in the specific case—so it would not affect the case my hon. Friend has in mind — but to give a guideline about what would be an appropriate sentence for such a case in future. Of course, that would be argued in open court and people could hear the arguments. The guideline would then have more effect. Such a clause will help public opinion and help to give a clear indication by the Court of Appeal about a proper sentence.
    Mr. Steel: As the National Farmers Union conference this morning called for the resignation of the Minister of Agriclture, Fisheries and Food, will the right hon. Lady see to it? Does she recognise that his statement yesterday, taken together with the Secretary of State for the Environment's recent Green Paper abolishing structure plans, amounts to a free-for-all for development in the countryside? Will this not simply accelerate the north-south drift and turn our farmers from stewards of our land into speculators in it?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman has read the draft circular for consultation, he will know that what he says is nonsense. There is no question of removing planning controls on agricultural land. There is nothing in the proposals to reduce the protection given to the green belt, national parks or other areas of good countryside. What we have said is that it no longer makes sense to apply reservations on agricultural grounds to less good land that is being proposed for development. Each planning application will continue to be considered on its merits according to the usual planning considerations.
    With regard to the motion of the National Farmers Union this morning, the NFU's action reflects a short-term view of the farming community. The last chairman of the NFU took a different view, which was set out in the NFU booklet "The Way Forward". This Government have made the preservation of a strong rural community an important objective. If the farming community wishes to have — [Interruption.] It will not be lost on the farming community that the Labour party is committed to rating agricultural land, tighter planning controls and increased capital taxation.
    Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the visit this week to Britain of Maulawi Younes Khales, leader of the Hezb-i-Islami of Afghanistan. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take time today to reassert Her Majesty's Government's support for the right to self-determination for the people of Afghanistan, free of outside interference?
    The Prime Minister: We believe wholeheartedly, as my hon. Friend says, in self-determination for the people of Afghanistan, and that the occupying forces of the Soviet Union should be withdrawn completely.
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February 1987.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Faulds: As this morning the National Farmers Union—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to ask his question, as has any hon. Member.
    Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful to you, Sir. May I assure you that the chiacking will not silence me. We will start again. As this morning the National Farmers Union passed a vote of no confidence in the right hon. Lady's Minister of Agriculture — a matter quite without precedent—and, indeed, demanded his resignation, and in view of the consternation that he is causing among his parliamentary colleagues and fellow Ministers, does the Prime Minister retain any confidence in him?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, complete confidence. My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to try to modify the common agricultural policy. Whatever votes were passed by the NFU this morning, in agriculture, food supply and demand must be brought more closely into balance, and surpluses eliminated. New surpluses must not build up through the intervention system. That matter will have to be dealt with in the interests of taxpayers, and consumers—all who purchase goods.
    Mr. Hannamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: Has my right hon. Friend studied the detailed account of the events leading up to the cancellation by the BBC of Ian Curteis's play on the
    160
    Falklands war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of the leading BBC officials in trying to enforce changes in the script, just because the play appeared to be pro-British, pro-Government and pro-Prime Minister, are disgraceful? Should not the BBC hand over the script to ITV so that it can produce the play to commemorate the successful defence of freedom?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the people concerned will take careful note of his comments.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rooker.
    Mr. Rooker: Where is the morality—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question No. 5.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooker: I repeat: where is the morality in the British Government allowing Iranian arms dealers to organise their arms purchases from London when there are British citizens in Iranian gaols who have not been charged or brought to trial?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the only powers that Governments have are to prevent exports of such arms from London without an export licence. There has been no such export licence. I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman wants us to take powers to find out what goes on in every office we shall totally reject that.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Rural Economy
3.31 pm
Dr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the planning implications of the Government's newly announced policy on the rural economy.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Yesterday, we sent to the local authority associations and other bodies a draft circular on development involving agricultural land.
Hon. Members: Speak up.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If there was not so much noise in the Chamber, perhaps we could better hear the Secretary of State.
Mr. Ridley: Today's agricultural surpluses make the protection of land for agricultural production less necessary, so the draft circular proposes an adjustment of planning policy.
The draft circular underlines the continuing need for strong planning control over the countryside. It says that the agricultural implications must be considered together with the environmental and economic aspects. In deciding applications, local planning authorities will still have to take account of the agricultural quality of the land and the rate at which it is taken for development. These factors would have to be considered alongside the needs of the rural economy and the need to protect green belts, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas of good countryside.
Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his announcement on planning in the countryside has caused deep dismay for all those who care about the unique beauty of the British countryside? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many people believe that his proposals envisage a planning regime that would threaten the very fabric of the countryside as we know it? Will he confirm that the presumption against development on agricultural land, as enshrined in circular 75/76, is being reversed and that his proposal envisages a regime where the presumption is in favour of development on all grade 3, 4 and 5 agricultural land and, indeed, all developments of less than 50 acres or approximately 500 houses on top quality agricultural land? Is this not just a charter for speculators?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that "development" in his proposed circular incorporates the widest definition, including not only housing but mineral workings and quarrying, which so easily damage our landscape irreparably? Does he accept that, under his proposals, many local authorities will hesitate before refusing planning permission for development, knowing that this will ultimately mean an appeal direct to him where there is a declared presumption in favour of development?
Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage his proposed circular — will he comment categorically on this — applying to proposed developments in green belts, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty? Does not the Secretary of State now accept that he would have instilled more confidence in the general public if he had announced his plans publicly in the House rather than in front of the press yesterday?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has engaged in a massive piece of misunderstanding and misrepresentation and he has also got his facts wrong. The presumption against development has always been there in relation to the green belt, but in no previous circular has there been a presumption against development on virgin land outside the green belt. That position is not changed by the circular that I published yesterday.
The only point in relation to the 20 hectares or 50 acres that he mentioned that has changed is that hitherto, on four hectares of agricultural land, councils have had to consult the Ministry of Agriculture before they took their decision. We now propose that they should have to consult statutorily only when 50 acres are involved and it is grade 1 or 2 land. That does not mean to say that local authorities cannot consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if they wish. If a local authority has to choose between development or land of high amenity or landscape value and development on land of high agricultural value, it is now free to make the environmentally correct decision. It can choose to grant permission for development on the agricultural land, rather than on the high landscape quality land.
The circular can be interpreted, quite properly, as giving greater weight to environmental and employment factors, and less weight to the quality of agricultural land. I expect it to result in no more development in the countryside, but I hope that where development must take place it will be better located.
I made it clear in the circular and in my statement that green belts, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks would not receive any less protection in any sense than they have hitherto received. It was quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to try to spread that alarm and despondency. With his knowledge and understanding of these issues, he should have been able to do better. He might also take note of the fact that, in almost every previous case, with perhaps only one or two exceptions, a circular has been issued in response to a written question in the House.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the need to protect the green belt? Will he assure the House that there is nothing in the new policy which lessens his ability or determination to do so?
Mr. Ridley: That is absolutely right in relation to the green belt. However, some hon. Members confuse the green belt with green land. I must make it clear that on green or virgin land, the considerations for development will now be based equally on its agricultural use, its environmental quality and the need for rural development in that area. Therefore, a higher rating will be given to the environmental and employment considerations than hitherto.
Mr. Michael Hancock: Does not the Secretary of State agree that this is nothing more than a developer's dream and a bonanza for builders? If not, why is he removing so many of the MAFF controls at this stage? Will he also say what sort of development he sees in the way of diversification on grade 1 agricultural land of between 4 and 20 hectares? Will the Secretary of State also say what proposals he has to give new opportunities to local authorities which have no structure plans to

163
control the development on grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, because under this current circular, there will be no such control?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The planning authority remains the planning authority, enabled to give or refuse permission to every application, large or small on land of any quality or quantity. That is not taken away. What is changed is that the planning authority does not statutorily have to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food except in the larger case of the 50-acre grade 1 or 2 land. The second change is that, alongside the quality of agricultural land, the environmental and employment aspects of the countryside are elevated and given more importance. That must be right if we want to see a rural economy that is strong and healthy. That will be the best way to protect the countryside. Therefore, we have asked local authorities not to turn down unnecessarily applications which will lead to small-scale activities of any sort in the countryside which will help to increase rural prosperity. That is nothing new and something which the Social Democratic party, as well as the Friends of the Earth and the Council for the Protection of Rural England have themselves been advocating.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Since the Government are right in helping farmers out of an economic straitjacket by giving them a range of opportunities for land use, will my right hon. Friend protect the countryside from the planners so that we do not see line upon line of houses on the heritage coastline or caravan parks on the skyline and make sure that derelict and vacant land in public ownership is got rid of first?
Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on the point about derelict land and public ownership. We will be proposing measures in that area to improve matters. In the first instance, the consent to planning and development lies with the local authority, so, although a certain number of cases come to me on appeal, the vast majority of planning that is given permission is given that permission by the local authority. I cannot intervene to take that away. All I am saying is that the guidance I issued in yesterday's circular will elevate the importance of the attractiveness and environmental qualities of the landscape beside those of the quality of the land.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not a fact that, until now, the presumption has been that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will use its powers under legislation and require the Secretary of State to call in developments on agricultural land, particularly grade I and 2? Has the Secretary of State not reversed that presumption in favour of developers when he says in paragraph 2 of annex A that that power will be exercised
"only in the most exceptional circumstances."
Is that not, therefore, a charter for the developers and has the Secretary of State switched off the electricity in the electric ring fence?
Mr. Ridley: That is not so. Hitherto, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had the statutory right to be consulted and can, like any other body or hon. Member, ask me to call in an application. That will still be the case. The Ministry can still ask me to call in an application. The decision about call-in will rest entirely with myself in future and the circular does not affect that
164
at all. It is only a question whether the consultation is statutorily required or voluntary in relation to areas of 50 acres or more.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Secretary of State agree that there is now no case for giving any special protection to agricultural land compared to other land on top of the rigid planning restrictions imposed by his own Department? In view of the outburst of ingratitude at today's National Farmers Union meeting, would it not be wise to remind that union and the Opposition that the EEC currently is spending £204 million every week on storing and dumping surpluses and that the average family in Britain is paying £13 a week more for its food than it otherwise would?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The present planning regime for the development of agricultural land is extremely strict. I would add that the circular, if anything, makes stricter, because it elevates the importance of the environmental considerations. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I am not tempted to comment on the common agricultural policy and matters of farming policy that are beyond my responsibility.
Mr. Allan Roberts: When the Secretary of State was appointed, the worst fears of the environmentalists were that he would try to privatise the environment, and he is certainly setting about that. He has not provided extra money for the farmers, either for coniferous planting or for anything else. The only way in which farmers will benefit from the statement will be by selling their land to developers or speculators—land they may not wish to sell, but which this policy will force them to sell. After trying to hand over the inner cities to the speculators, he is now handing them England's green and pleasant land.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The vast majority of land is already privatised, because it is privately owned, and it will be equally difficult to obtain planning permission in future as it has been in the past—
Mr. Jack Straw: Then why are the Government making this change?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not got the point, although I have made it six dines and he is usually quite quick. I will make the point a seventh time and perhaps he will then understand. The point is that environmental and employment considerations in rural areas will rank equal to the value of the land in terms of fertility when giving planning consent. I would have thought that the whole House would welcome that.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on further reflection, the guidelines will be widely welcomed as a means of ensuring the maintenance of enterprise in rural areas without threatening the green belt? Nevertheless, does he accept that, when local authorities grant a change of use for redundant farm buildings, there is a delicate balance to be held between the growth of small enterprise and a possible overstrain of the infrastructure? Can he assure the House that he will pass a message to local authorities requesting them to ensure that there is no overstrain of the infrastructure?
Mr. Ridley: Certainly, I agree about the great importance of allowing alternative activities and industry

165
to take place in the countryside to increase the income of rural dwellers. In that way the countryside can be maintained at the high standard to which we have become accustomed.
My predecessor issued a circular encouraging the conversion of redundant farm buildings and we are pursuing that policy. We are asking local planning authorities to encourage that policy, but to ensure that conversions are in scale and that they fit in with the local surroundings. They must not change the rural character of the area. There is a delicate balance to strike, and it is for local authorities to do that. I am sure that they will do it very well.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, no matter how he tries to retreat today from what has been leaked previously and from what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday, the electors will see this as another posture by the Tory party to assist those in the City who have made money hand over fist during the past seven years. It gives them the ability to move out of the city into the stockbroker belt and beyond to make even more money.
Is it not a sad reflection on the highly developed western economy run by this Tory Government that, at a time when the Third world is starving and when we are faced with food surpluses which the Government cannot find ways to transfer to those who badly need them, they are preparing to line the pockets of the stockbrokers and the City slickers instead of feeding those starving millions?
Mr. Ridley: I must say that I have a certain admiration for the hon. Gentleman. Having listened to the details for 17 minutes — and I believe that the circular has been explained to the satisfaction of all my hon. Friends—he has got some neck in trying to misinterpret it and to get it wrong. It might help if he learnt to read, so that he could read the circular for himself.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this package will help farmers to control surpluses and enable them to develop their initiatives as viable businesses?
On trees and the environment, can my right hon. Friend confirm that we should be encouraging not woodlands of conifers in the lowlands but trees that will be sympathetic to the landscape?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question, which I entirely accept and agree with. Forestry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, from an environmental point of view, I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about grants to increase broadleaved trees in farm areas and also lower down the hill. That will be a positive contribution to improving our countryside.
Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept that his circular is nothing more than a charter for those who would rather jerry-build in a green field site than properly redevelop derelict urban areas?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I advise him that last year 45 per cent. of all the land that was taken for building was land that had already been used
166
before and that was derelict or waste land. That is the best figure that has ever been achieved in this country. Despite a massive amount of development, we managed to get 45 per cent. of it on to old land, which is therefore improved, rather than on new land. That figure is getting better every year. It will improve again this year and will be better again next year as a result of the Government's policy.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend earlier acknowledged that agriculture and the countryside are indivisible. He is aware that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that he would produce a policy document on alternative land use. Would my right hon. Friend consider a joint document between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Department, to which they would be joint signatories, which would make it a great deal easier for those concerned with agriculture and those living in the countryside to understand the full implications of the Government's new policy?
Mr. Ridley: I think that my hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether I have his agreement to pursue exactly that course. Furthermore, I intend to publish a document that is being prepared by the Development Commission, which will set out the many ways that we are working out to help those who wish to start small businesses or other concerns in the countryside, and inform those people how they can get better advice, help, premises, loans and grants. All of that is being worked out. It would be a good idea if we published it as a compendium volume in due course.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will the Secretary of State give a firm assurance to the House that the presumption will continue to be strongly against the use of low-grade agricultural land in the green belt for housing development, especially when derelict land is easily and readily available in the vicinity?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, that has always been the case. There is a presumption against permission being granted in the green belt.
Dr. McDonald: Now?
Mr. Ridley: There will be in the future. That is exactly the same as before.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even if he is able to bring into use those thousands of urban acres of derelict land that are owned by public authorities, there will still be a need, if we are to meet the nation's housing requirements, for some building on green field sites? Are not the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend self-evident — that poor quality agricultural land might be put to better use? Is that not an excellent allocation of the nation's resources?
Mr. Ridley: I think that my hon. Friend is quite right. Where an authority or perhaps a county that has made a structure plan feels that there is a need for more housing, it must be right not to fetter the planning authority's decision as to precisely which land should be built on. It is obviously better to build on low quality agricultural land than on high quality landscape land and that is what the circular seeks to put right.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has been much more forthcoming than

167
he was last Wednesday at Question Time. Is that not simply because he has been put in an extremely embarrassing position by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who was trying to get himself out of the trouble that he got into earlier today? Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a world of difference between rural development and creating an open house for rural dereliction? In view of all the apparent chaos in Government circles, can he tell us whether the Scottish Office has been involved in the discussions—if, indeed, there have been any discussions?
Mr. Ridley: Obviously, I could not tell the hon. Gentleman about all these plans last week, because they had not been published. Now that they have been published, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I agreed upon the terms of the circular several weeks ago. We were only waiting to have it published alongside his important, major statement about the future of the rural economy and agriculture which he published yesterday and elaborated on to the National Farmers Union this morning. It is all part of a perfectly sensible strategy. The hon. Gentleman will find that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are wholly content with all that has been said and done.
Mr. John Heddle: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), will he confirm that the green belt around the conurbations remains sacrosanct? Will he further confirm that his Department will make every effort to ensure that low-grade land, such as allotment land, becomes available for residential purposes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will he continue to ensure that all vacant and derelict inner-city land comes forward for development as soon as possible?
Mr. Ridley: I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend on the last point. Over and again I have made it clear that there is no change of policy and no relaxation of control whatever proposed on the green belt. On allotments, I have a soft spot for allotment holders. Obviously, the grade of the allotment, whether grade 1 or grade 2, must be considered. It must be for the local planning authority to decide what it thinks is appropriate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. I have already allowed 25 minutes for it and I shall allow a further five minutes, making half an hour. Then we must move on, because we have a heavy day ahead of us.
Mr. Bill Michie: The Secretary of State has sought to assure the House that the high amenity land, including the green belt, will be all right, with the excuse that some grade 3 land should be developed to provide jobs, housing or whatever. How does he square that with rate-capping local authorities, such as Sheffield, which have land for development, providing jobs and housing? Surely rate-capped authorities could do much more if they were given freedom, than, developers in rural areas can do with a blank cheque?
Mr. Ridley: I do not think that it is appropriate that ratepayers' money on revenue account should be used for development. Nobody would want to pay rates in order to
168
see development and houses built. The hon. Gentleman is mixing the capital account with the revenue account. Surely it is better for development to take place with private capital than for ratepayers to be forced to borrow and pay interest on expensive public capital.
Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend's assurance that the presumption against development in I he green belt remains will be welcome. Will he confirm that it is still possible for any developer to apply to develop green belt land? That application must then be considered by the local authority, it may come before him and over a long period it may cause a great deal of unnecessary local anxiety. Could he not strengthen his policy by declaring that certain parts of the green belt, such as those around conurbations, are inviolate and that no application whatever will be entertained?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal of time and effort is wasted on applications for developments in the green belt. The policy is absolutely clear: no major developments will be allowed on the green belt, but only developments in relation to the rural community, leisure or such matters. That has been repeated over and again and developers are wasting their time if they apply for major developments — [HON. MEMBERS: "What does major mean?"] — or arty development which is in contravention of the policy that has been enunciated. My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has a bad cold. My hon. Friend has gone a little further in saying that it is unlikely that major retail centres which are applied for in the green belt have a chance of receiving permission.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Could the Secretary of State indicate and quantify what area of agricultural land will be affected by these proposals? How will developments of land affect agricultural tenants with regard to landlords? What are the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends doing to ensure that other Members of the European Community are also acting in that way?
Mr. Ridley: I believe that., subject to my right hon. Friend's views, grades 1 and 2 cover about 17 per cent. of agricultral land in this country. There will, of course, be no new problems in relation to tenants in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested. As I have made clear, we are simply changing the presumption so that it is more in favour of the environment and jobs and less in favour of agricultural quality.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I disassociate myself from the emotive misrepresentations of the Opposition and the posturings of the dilettante alliance, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the vast majority of Conservative supporters support the countryside whether it be green or green belt? Will he assure the House today that, whether the land be grade 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will or should be consulted by local authorities whenever there is any doubt or controversy about a development plan?
Mr. Ridley: I assure my hon. Friend that I yield to no one in my love of the countryside and want to see it preserved in every way possible—and, indeed, enhanced

169
and improved. We will not achieve that unless we have a new way of finding jobs and prosperity in the countryside. That is one of the objectives that the circular addresses.
Would my hon. Friend remind me of his second point?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be consulted?
Mr. Ridley: That is a matter for the planning authorities. They can consult anyone they please—the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are perfectly free to consult experts in any of those areas. Local councillors would believe that they can be trusted to take their own decisions and consult where they believe that that is necessary rather than have endless duties thrust upon them which makes the whole process of planning slower and more cumbersome.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will bear in mind again, as I said I would last night and as I have today, those hon. Members who have not been called on this occasion, and I will seek to give them priority.

Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the Prime Minister's reply earlier this afternoon to myself and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had the interesting spectacle of Government policy being made on the hoof over the past couple of days. First, we had the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Home Robertson: I am asking leave to make a request of another Minister following on from all this. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a clear continuation of questions.
Mr. Home Robertson: No it is not.
Mr. Speaker: Yes it is. It is a clear continuation of questions. It is unfair to those hon. Members whom I have not called.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker I want to seek your guidance, and perhaps your protection. In column 38 of Hansard yesterday there is a statement by the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning in which he says that the Member of Parliament for Midlothian—"(Mr. Eadie)" as it says in Hansard—had accepted the fact that nuclear waste would come into his constituency. I want to make it perfectly clear that neither in this House nor outside have I made any such statement.
I understand from my secretary that the Minister will be writing to me. However, as this is an aspect of great public importance, I seek your guidance and protection, Mr. Speaker. As the statement is so grossly inaccurate, I believe that the Minister must come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement to correct his previous statement, as that is already on record in Hansard. I seek your guidance and protection, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot force any Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. However, the hon. Gentleman has correctly made his point and I am sure that that will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    COMPANIES (AUDIT COMMITTEES)
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, supported by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Robert Edwards, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Tom Normanton, Sir David Price, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Richard Wainwright and Mr. Mark Wolfson, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the election and responsibilities of directors of companies and to the composition of boards of directors; to make provision concerning the appointment of independent non-executive directors; to require procedures to be followed in certain public companies in regard to the appointment and functioning of an audit committee of the board; to make further provision in regard to the responsibilities of auditors; and to make other changes in the law relating to companies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May and to be printed [Bill 69].

Statutory Instruments &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the eight motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Health Education Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 6) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Health Education Authority Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 7) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Cambrian Mountains) Designation Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2257) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (West Penwith) Designation Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No.2251) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (South Downs) Designation Order 1986 (S.1., 1986, No. 2249) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Somerset Levels and Moors) Designation Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2252) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &.
That the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Pennine Dales) Designation Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2253) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (The Broads) Designation Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2254) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Law of Property (Amendment)
4.5 pm
Mr. John Heddle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eliminate gazumping.
This is a simple five-clause Bill designed to outlaw the practice known as gazumping. Gazumping is a horrible word and a horrible practice. It is the term used to describe the situation in which the seller of a house, having agreed to see at an agreed price, goes against his word and withdraws from the deal or threatens to do so in the expectation of receiving a higher offer. The buyer is then put in the position of having to pay that higher price or withdrawing altogether and being faced with substantial legal costs and survey fees.
Gazumping has caused great distress over many years to all home buyers, but most particularly to the most vulnerable, the first-time buyers, and to young married couples wishing to get onto the home ownership ladder. In the dear dead days of relative stability in the housing market, the "subject-to-contract" clause served its purpose admirably. It gave time for mature consideration and the careful investigation of a transaction, with both parties having the opportunity to withdraw from a tentative agreement. However, in an era of seemingly ever-increasing house prices, with offer followed by counteroffer, and counter-counter-offer on top of that counteroffer, the original logic of that procedure has become clouded and the formula of the previously accepted selling behaviour has crumbled.
Sellers may well be very happy with the results of gazumping, but the expense, frustration and heartache borne by potential purchasers has been very great. Last summer, the Law Commission's conveyancing standing committee set up an inquiry into the possibility of curbing gazumping. A decade earlier, in 1973, a similar exercise was carried out by the Law Commission which concluded that, although private treaty sales were open to some abuses, the arrangements were basically sound and no change in the law should be recommended.
With a new burst of activity in the housing market, generated particularly by a wider choice of lending institutions—not simply the traditional building societies and British banks, but now foreign banks and other institutions — prepared to lend ever more flexible mortgages, it was right for the Law Commission to reexamine the range of possible options.
There were three options—first, to move towards the Scottish system, where potential buyers submit sealed bids before a closing date, after which the deal becomes binding.
The second option envisaged a vendor who backed out of a deal reimbursing any legal, survey or other out-of-pocket expenses that had been incurred before the would-be purchaser had found that his aims, ambitions and dreams had been frustrated.
The third proposal suggested a voluntary agreement by both parties to pay a similar percentage of the purchase price as a deposit, which would be forfeited if either withdrew from the transaction without any good reason within four weeks or whatever time limit was mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Sadly, the Law Commission has opted for the third course, which is probably the weakest of the three

173
possibilities that I have described. It is the option which is, in any event, unlikely to be put into practice, because of the very nature of the voluntary agreement. It is riddled with anachronisms and uncertainties.
The commission's pre-contract deposit scheme envisages both buyer and seller voluntarily paying a deposit of 0·5 per cent. of the purchase price once the bargain has been agreed and a preliminary agreement signed. There would then be a requirement for a firm contract for the sale and purchase within four weeks, in the absence of withdrawal for good reasons. Otherwise, the lack of contract would mean the defaulting party would forfeit the deposit. Although full credit has to be given to the work done by the Law Commission's standing conveyancing committee, under the excellent chairmanship of Professor Farrand, it did not produce an acceptable answer, despite its admirable motives.
My Bill proposes five solutions, four of them to be legally binding and one by way of recommendation, which would provide the answers to this present-day problem of gazumping. To eliminate the length of time and thus the length of uncertainty between the acceptance of an offer by a seller and the exchange of contracts by, sadly, a continuingly dilatory legal profession, I suggest these five simple solutions.
First, the seller and the buyer should be legally bound to pay a 0·5 per cent. deposit, which would be forfeited if exchange of contracts did not take place within four weeks without good reason. Secondly, the seller should be obliged to provide searches and answers to prospective purchasers' standard pre-contract inquiries, so that they can be passed on to his or her solicitors on acceptance of the offer, and so reduce that length of time during which the legal ball is batted between vendor's solicitor and purchaser's solicitor and back again.
Thirdly, local authorities should be required, in any event, to computerise their legal services. Without doubt, that proposal, of all, would command both the respect and the acceptance of both sides of the Chamber. Fourthly,
174
local authorities should be required to deal with applications of local searches within 14 days. Computerisation would enable that to take place. In the event of local authorities not doing so, they would forfeit the search fees that they charge.
Finally — I would not make this mandatory — the vendor should be encouraged to provide and make available to the purchaser, on acceptance of the offer, an independent survey and valuation report prepared by a qualified surveyor; that the purchaser could then take that to his or her building society, bank or other lending institution, which, if it accepted that valuation, could then reduce the amount of time between acceptance of the mortgage and thus exchange of contracts.
If, because of human nature, gazumping cannot be stopped completely, at least under these proposals the would-be purchaser whose offer was aborted would be better protected than he or she is at the moment and at least receive some compensation and recompense for the heartbreak and financial loss incurred. Naturally, if the vendor stands to gain more than the 0·5 per cent. deposit that he would forfeit by going against his word, the law cannot intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "Market forces."] Yes, that would be market forces.
Anything that deters the consequential financial loss of such reprehensible conduct is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. I invite the House to give a fair wind to this simple Bill, which should strike a chord in the hearts and minds of all constituents, particularly those wishing to buy their house for the first time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heddle, Sir Paul Hawkins, Sir Philip Holland, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. J. F. Pawsey.

Law of Property (Amendment)
  LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Heddle accordingly presented a Bill to eliminate gazumping: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Housing and Homelessness
4.15 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move,
That this House believes that it is an obligation for any responsible and caring Government to ensure that there is a fit home available to buy or rent for every household in the country; believes that such an objective is a social and economic priority which cannot be achieved by market forces alone, which lead to increased prices for housing and land for those seeking a home; recognises that the objective can only be achieved by a combination of private and public provision; and therefore calls for a reversal of present policies, which have failed to meet the objective, which are leading to a decline in the overall quality of the housing stock and failing to increase it at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of the people of Britain, and which are increasing homelessness.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Many right hon. and hon. Members have expressed a wish to take part in the debate. As yet, I have no authority to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock, but I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind. If they do so, they can all be called.
Dr. Cunningham: The Labour party has chosen to debate the deteriorating housing situation in Britain today because of the fundamental importance of the social and economic issues involved. After seven years of Conservative policies it is widely recognised that a housing crisis exists and that there is an alarming increase in homelessness. Major problems of housing shortage, deteriorating homes, and absence of any real choice are apparent in rural areas, towns and inner cities alike. The decline in the nation's housing is outpacing existing programmes of restoration in the private and public sectors. The cost of mortgages means that many people cannot afford to buy a home, and increasingly, families doing so cannot meet their repayments.
The huge and increasing gap between the cost of houses in London and the south-east and the cost in other parts of the country is preventing some people from taking up work and is adding to the difficulties of employers, particularly in the public sector. Government policies on house building, finance and interest rates are making a difficult situation much worse for millions of families.
There is a lack of any strategy for improving inferior housing, and no serious attempt to deal with defective housing, much of which results from policies of system building and high rise Rates introduced by earlier Conservative Administrations. There is a scandalous growth in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is not only a wholly unsuitable way to house families but a grossly inefficient use of public money.
Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to get away with that. Does he not realise that the biggest drive for system building was under Mr. Richard Crossman?
Dr. Cunningham: I do not recognise that, because it is not true.
Mr. Latham: Of course it is true.
Dr. Cunningham: System-built housing and high-rise flats as a policy were initiated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when Minister of Housing and Local Government in a Conservative Government, and the incoming Labour Government in
176
1964, having assessed the situation, terminated the additional subsidy in 1967, having recognised the weaknesses of the system. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was completely in error.
The situation in many houses in multiple occupation is a disgrace. The Department of the Environment's own report on houses in multiple occupation, published as recently as 23 January, describes a scandal. Approximately four fifths of all surveyed houses in multiple occupation were assessed by surveyors as unsatisfactory on at least one of three measures — management, occupancy, and amenity provision. Only a quarter of them were assessed as being of a good standard. Nearly three quarters of tenants lived in one room. Only 39 per cent. of tenants had access to a full range of adequate amenities. Overall, 80 per cent. of all such houses had a means of escape which was, to quote the report, "defective, inadequate or nonexistent", which is a clear breach of fire regulations. The reality is that the Government stand indicted today for pursuing policies which are divisive and unfair.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that almost as scandalous as the revelations in the report was the response of the Housing Minister to those revelations, which was revolting in its complacency, stating for example that the report indicates that houses in multiple occupation do a useful job in many towns and cities, providing relatively cheap housing, furnished accommodation and a lack of restriction which is popular with some tenants?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The Minister of State's response, as set out in his press notice from the Department of the Environment, was disgracefuly complacent about the problem of people living in houses in multiple occupation. An examination of the past seven years shows that Government policies have actually exacerbated problems, and made difficult situations much worse. Problems resulting from short-sighted planning and defective construction are also being neglected. No attempt is made to be fair in terms of financial support either. Massive cash reductions for public rented housing contrast starkly with unlimited tax relief for those on very high incomes.
These major failures in housing policy will result in the increasing misallocation of public and private finance and considerable damage to the building and construction industries and their suppliers. Worst of all in any decent civilised and wealthy country is the social cost, misery and deprivation. These costs — economic and social — are costs on everyone. They are bills that the nation cannot afford, from a Government that the nation cannot afford. Our motion today does not suggest that the existing problems are all the fault of the existing Government. It does suggest that present policies are making things worse for millions of our fellow citizens and that the country as a whole is disadvantaged as a result.
The Government's amendment blandly ignores the seriousness of the situation, reflecting not only the complacency of the Conservatives but a lack of responsibility and of caring. There is an abundance of evidence to support the Labour party case, much of it in the Government's own reports and statistics. Reports from voluntary organisations — Shelter, SHAC and CHAR—confirm our view and are highly critical of Government policy. The Building Employers

177
Confederation, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, NEDO, the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry into British housing, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Audit Commission, the Institute of Housing, the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission—we could build houses with the volumes of evidence, reports and inquiries, all highly critical of present and past policy failures.
The criticisms highlight the incompetence of Conservative policies on local government finance, their unfairness in taxation, loss of opportunities for growth and employment and a lack of urgency in responding to the problems. In spite of all the evidence, the Government have abdicated responsibility, apparently in the naive belief that market forces will solve these problems. The Prime Minister's extreme views on public services and her determination to eliminate collective provision are the root cause of much failure in current housing policy and the misery which results.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member talks about abdication of responsibility, but is there not an abdication of responsibility by the London boroughs which have allowed their rent arrears to run to 20 per cent of total rents due?
Dr. Cunningham: No one on this side of the House defends inefficiency in local government, as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others made clear as recently as last weekend in Leeds. Since the hon. Member for Bolton North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is talking about arrears, let me remind the hon. Gentleman of some of the worst offenders in the case of arrears in payments to local government. The Conservative council at Winchester is owed by a single client £742,000 from the year 1985–86.
Mr. Thurnham: Name the client.
Dr. Cunningham: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows who the client is. It is the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The same right hon. Gentleman's Department owes Salford council £100,000; Chester-le-Street district council—my home town — £330,000; Luton council £300,000—
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Are we glad the hon. Gentleman asked this question.
Dr. Cunningham: — Manchester £100,000; Wandsworth — Conservative controlled — £125,000; Ealing £265,000. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in arrears and debtors, I suggest that he table some new questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I would like my hon. Friend to add Brent, which was Conservative controlled until last May. Brent had a colossal amount of arrears which the new Labour administration now has to clear up.
Dr. Cunningham: That is absolutely true, and they have to clear it up on the basis of a Conservative budget which has been rate-cut by the present administration.
The Government have followed a deliberate and consistent policy of reducing the money available to councils to build new houses and repair and renovate their existing stock. The value of housing investment
178
programmes is now only 28 per cent., in real terms, of the 1979 value. Allowing for the perversely restricted use of councils' own capital receipts, actual spending in real terms is 59 per cent. of the level of 1979. Government policy has not only reduced the borrowing provisions by 72 per cent., it has prevented those councils that wish to from making up that drastic reduction by using their own money raised from sales of houses and land. That is how perverse Government policy has become.
These cuts have reduced council house completions from over 66,000 in 1979 to just over 18,000 in 1985–86. Housing association programmes have also been reduced. In England the newbuild figures were 16,275 in 1979 when Labour left office and 9,039 in 1985–86. Rehabilitations are also down in that sector, from just over 17,000 in 1979 to over 11,500 in 1985–86.
So much for the claim of Ministers to be pro the housing associations. It is true that private sector house building has increased in the same period from about 140,000 to 150,000 a year. But, overall, the completion of new homes is down substantially, by about 100,000 each year compared with the Labour Government's performance. Realistically, houses for owner-occupation anyway can never on their own solve the problems of those who cannot afford to buy. In this same period the number of households accepted as homeless has doubled, from 56,750 in 1979 to an estimated 103,700 last year. But the actual number of households who regard themselves as homeless has reached the staggering total of more than 250,000 under this Government. The severe shortage of adequate, affordable, fit housing is causing the crisis.
There are regional variations in homelessness, but it is concentrated particularly in London and the south-east. In 1986, of all households accepted as homeless, 44 per cent. were from the Greater London area. In some parts of the country, again particularly London and the south-east, there are insufficient lettings available to house the homeless. The use of bed and breakfast, hostels, hotels and other short-stay accommodation has increased significantly. Published data updated by preliminary results show approximately 7,500 households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation alone. Of these, over 6,150 are in Greater London. Current individual examples include 885 in Tower Hamlets, 402 in Haringey and 980 in Camden.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: My hon. Friend has rightly stressed the increase in homelessness. Is he basing that figure on the designation of homelessness in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977? If so, the homelessness is greater.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. I am basing the figure on the provisions of that Act; I said that those accepted and registered as homeless exceed 100,000, but that the real total is more than 250,000 households.
Families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have created a new form of waiting list. In some parts of London there is no indication when or if households in temporary accommodation will move into permanent housing. For example, the current waiting period for the bed and breakfast case in Camden who needs a four-bedroom home is at least four years. Some councils cannot say when a household will be made an offer.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many vacant

179
properties there are in those local authority areas run by the Labour party, which have been mentioned in the latest Audit Commission report? What does he, as a Labour Member and as the Labour environment spokesman, intend to do about those authorities and the wasted housing assets that exist in those areas?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall come to that in a few moments because it is an important question. Suffice it to say for the moment that the number of vacant tenancies in local authority control is the smallest of any sector as a percentage, and is falling.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has mentioned Labour authorities. We recognise that there are problems. Indeed, the leader of the Association of London Authorities, Councillor Margaret Hodge, wrote to the comptroller of the Audit Commission on 4 February, seeking help and co-operation from it in rectifying the weaknesses in the management systems of the authorities concerned. We welcome that positive response.
On vacancies in London, the hon. Gentleman and Ministers on the Treasury Bench have good cause to consider what one London borough is doing. It is keeping deliberately vacant nearly 1,000 houses which are in good condition. The council will not let them be occupied unless they are bought. This is a borough with almost 200 homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, almost 1,000 families on the waiting list, and almost 6.000 families wanting a transfer. It is the Conservative-controlled borough of Wandsworth.
The use of temporary accommodation is increasing at an alarming rate. Figures for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England four years ago were 3,270 and today are an estimated 11,000. Several thousand more households are in hostels and other temporary accommodation. Last week the Secretary of State's solution was
"to run up as many hostels as quickly as possible to house these people".—[Official Report, 4 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 985.]
That was the nasty, inadequate, uncaring response of the Secretary of State, but it would not be a cheap one to the British economy or to the taxpayer. It would be a very expensive expedient, because the average cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to a local authority in London is £9,500, compared to the annual loan charges on the construction of a new two-bedroom dwelling of only £7,700. In other words, it is cheaper to build new houses or even to acquire existing houses than to go on putting people into this absymal accommodation.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be more of a public outcry over the appalling position of people living in bed and breakfast accommodation if the media showed more interest? Has my hon. Friend looked at the Press Gallery and seen the minimal amount of interest in the debate?
Dr. Cunningham: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at the lack of interest in what is by any test a national crisis in housing.
There are numerous examples of statutory overcrowding. In some cases, whole families live in one room in temporary accommodation. Also, wholly inadequate amenity provision and substandard fire precautions abound. There is no overall standard for bed and breakfast accommodation, although some London Labour
180
boroughs are working towards a base minimum. The Institute of Housing says that bed and breakfast costs are £30 million a year and are rising. There is little specific assistance to councils through rate support grant; therefore, they must effectively meet the bill themselves.
Ministers argue repeatedly that the homelessness crisis can be solved by bringing empty council homes into use. The facts are that 2·3 per cent. of council stock is vacant, and the total is falling; 4·2 per cent. of the owner-occupied and private rented sector stock is vacant, over 500,000 homes; the biggest culprit of all, with the highest percentage of vacant stock as a landlord is—guess who — Her Majesty's Government, with 6·9 per cent. of Government property vacant, and that percentage is rising.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Most council dwellings are vacant for only short periods during changes of tenancy or for repairs. However, 27,000 have been vacant for more than a year. The evidence shows that most of those are concentrated in London, sometimes the products of early municipalisation policies. By far the majority are already in planned renovation programmes. Those not in such programmes require additional resources to renovate them at a faster rate which is not available from the Government because of their present policies. Many of these houses are already let to short-life users, the homeless. They are let on short-life terms to housing associations or on other initiatives, even though they are officially recorded as vacant.
The housing that is unfit to live in will remain boarded up until it can be brought up to the minimum standard. Cutting council investment, restricting the use of capital receipts, stopping the acquisition of homes to rent, cutting housing association programmes and the recent restriction by the Minister of State, for no good reason, of leasing arrangements between local authorities, the private sector and housing associations, all restrict the better management by local authorities of these problems.
Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Gentleman has explained to the House his assessment of the reasons why houses and flats in the public sector remain empty. Will he now enlighten the House as to the extent to which he believes that the Rent Acts are the cause of empty houses and flats in the private sector or give us his explanation why they remain empty?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point in due course.
Mortgage payers, too, are in difficulties and mortgage defaults and arrears are increasing alarmingly. While the number of loans has increased by about one third since 1979, the number of families in arrears has risen sixfold. When the Government were elected, mortgage arrears in excess of one year were too insignificant to record. They now exceed 14,000. The number of houses repossessed from owner-occupiers last year was estimated at more than 20,000—virtually 10 times the number in 1979.
Mortgage payers got a consistently better deal under the Labour Government than they have had since 1979. Mortgage interest rates have averaged about 13 per cent. under this Government and have reached a crisis level of 15 per cent., not once but twice. Only the Government

181
refuse to recognise the need to build more houses and significantly to improve the rate of renovation of private and public housing. But the Government's own statistics indicate a shortfall of homes fit and available of about 1 million. The Government's own research on the local authority housing stock condition showed a staggering backlog of £19 billion for renovation and repair of council houses in England alone. That was the Government's own report.
The Audit Commission believes that this total is growing at the rate of £900 million a year. Figures for essential rehabilitation of private houses are even higher. That is one of the reasons why they cannot be let, but there are others, and I shall come to that in a moment.
Traditional private rented accommodation continues to decline despite claims from successive Ministers about shortholds and assured tenancies. There are opportunities for new initiatives between local authorities and developers on mixed tenure schemes, and councils are showing increasing interest. We welcome this. We support assured tenancies, shared ownership and mixed tenure schemes as ways of increasing the options available to those seeking homes.
We have a way of putting the Government's record to the test on all these matters. It is at the Greenwich by-election. Greenwich is an inner London borough with a mix of outer London borough housing problems which is quite typical of the housing crisis in London. The problems of the borough well illustrate the effects of eight years of Tory housing policy. Homeless households accepted under the Act have increased fivefold since 1982 from 320 to 1,500 in the current year. Over 90 per cent. of homeless cases in Greenwich are local Greenwich people. The waiting list has increased 50 per cent. in the last four years from below 10,000 in 1982 to over 16,000 currently. Many families in Greenwich are now seriously overcrowded and have no prospect of moving to better accommodation.
House prices have doubled in the past four years. The cheapest three-bedroomed house in the borough now costs £55,000 and requires an income of at least £15,000 for a first-time buyer to be able to purchase it. Ordinary people in the borough of Greenwich, even if they are lucky enough to have a job, do not earn that sort of money, and people who in the past would have been able to buy can no longer do so.
The borough has 4,000 unfit private sector dwellings — another reason for the decline in the private rented sector—some of which need as much as £10,000 each in major repairs to make them fit. The private rented sector is collapsing in the borough of Greenwich as landlords convert dwellings and sell for a substantial capital gain. The clearest example of this is the Morden college estate, where no fewer than 900 private landlord homes are currently on the market for sale. That is another reason for the decline, in case the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is still interested in responses to his questions.
The latest assessment is that £367 million needs to be invested in the borough's housing stock over a decade, which, allowing for inflation, requires an investment, on average, of £43 million per annum. There are extensive problems of system-built estates, too.
What have the Government done in Greenwich? They have cut housing subsidies to the borough by £13 million.
182
Government policy has cut housing investment in the borough from the 1979 average under the Labour Government of nearly £45 million at current prices. The Tories' housing investment programme allocation for the coming financial year, on the same basis, is £15·5 million — only one third of what it was eight years ago.
If the allocation had been kept at the same level the borough would have had an additional £200 million to invest in housing over the past eight years which would have built 1,500 new homes, given 5,000 more improvement grants, allowed for the protection of all the Morden college properties, replaced the windows of 7,500 dwellings, modernised 4,000 kitchens, re-roofed 5,000 dwellings and provided 8,000 dwellings with central heating. That is an indication of the damage done in the borough of Greenwich as a result of this Government's policies.
The Government have claimed that local authorities are not effective managers of council accommodation; that they are inefficient and irresponsible. Let us look at Greenwich.
Voids in the private sector in the borough are double what they are in the public sector—5 per cent. Current rent arrears represent only 5 per cent. of total income collected from council tenants. Praised by the Audit Commission as an effective, efficient, well-run authority, the borough has rehoused 2,600 homeless families over the last four years and has not spent a penny on bed and breakfast in doing so. The authority is progressive and pragmatic. It consults its customers. There are nearly 80 tenants' associations in the borough, and the housing service has 500 meetings with the public each year. It is a decentralised service operating through 13 local housing offices without screens or barriers between the public and the staff. It treats the question of equal opportunities seriously and believes that its staff and its policies must reflect the needs of all people in the borough. It works with other agencies, particularly housing associations and voluntary groups.
The borough is planning for the future, too. Under the last Labour Government, the council was building 450 council dwellings each year. Since 1982 the average has been 60, as a result of Government policy. The borough is organising now to produce 400 homes per year and is seeking to buy land and design new housing schemes for when a Labour Government is returned.
"Greenwich is a borough under quite left-wing political control but it collects its rates and rents and fills its empty houses. And it does it efficiently and I pay tribute to that,."
I pay tribute to that, and so does the Minister of State, because that is a direct quotation from him when he was interviewed on the BBC television programme "This Week, Next Week" on 2 November 1986.
This is a council which any sensible Government would want to work with and not undermine; a council which is doing an excellent job for its community. Will Ministers from the Department of the Environment dare to put a contrary view to that of the Minister of State at the by-election in Greenwich? Will they go and argue against him? We will be waiting for them if they do—I can assure them of that—but I doubt that they have the guts to show their faces.
In the February edition of House Builder, Mr. Peter Short, the president of the House Builders Federation writes:

183
"Government Ministers can no longer be trusted with responsibility for housing".
He goes on to say that under-provision of housing or its deterioration in both the private and public sectors will have increasingly severe effects on the efficiency of industry, while inadequate investment in the public sector stock and in the provision of housing in areas of need with which the market cannot deal will add to the decay of urban areas and the rise of homelessness—and he is right. Yet neither of these issues is adequately addressed—least of all, he says, by the Ministers responsible at the Department of the Environment.
The reality is that Ministers have abdicated those responsibilities. They have combined malice towards public provision with incompetence in administration. Their policies have failed and can only make an appalling situation much worse. A Labour Government will expand investment in housing, public and private, and allocate finance more fairly. A Labour Government will work in partnership with the building industry and local councils to improve people's homes and build more where necessary and, in doing so, create much-needed jobs. We shall strengthen tenant's rights and equal opportunities too. We will do these things because they are right—right for the people and right for the country.
4.51 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the Opposition's long overdue recognition of the need to combine public and private provision in housing; commends the Government for taking steps to re-establish the right to rent; recognises that further progress in increasing choice and supply depends on re-creating a market in rented housing and harnessing private sector resources, and therefore rejects calls for more municipal housing which can only lead, as it has done in the past, to poorly managed, badly maintained unpopular estates provided at excessive public expenditure cost; and commends instead this Government's achievements in seeing one and a half million more homes built since May 1979, and in widening the opportunities for home ownership, so that there are now well over two million more home owners than in 1979, and in meeting housing needs in the most efficient and effective way.'.
I welcome this debate and a discussion of the issues in the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I rather lost him when he started to fight the Greenwich by-election. He might have been wiser to go down to Greenwich, because there are not many people here from Greenwich and certainly no one else in the Gallery was listening to him.
We on this side of the House are quite clear that everyone should be able to have a decent home, whether rented or owned. Everyone should be able to afford a home, and we will continue to ensure that no one need be homeless because he cannot afford a home. There are problems, but they are not the result of a lack of resources or an overall shortage of housing. They are a direct result of the lack of a proper market in rented housing and the inevitable inefficiencies that arise when we have a managed economy in rented housing. If we can create a true market in the rented sector, we will help not only those who now find accommodation through the homelessness legislation, and council tenants who now have very little choice in their housing, but those who do not fall within the priority need categories—young people looking for jobs, for example, or people whose job requires them to be mobile.
184
The figures issued by my Department, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, do not show the number of homeless people. They show the number of households which are accepted as homeless by local authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and given shelter. All the households in these figures have roofs over their heads, although after listening to the hon. Gentleman one would not think so. Fifty per cent of them move immediately into permanent, full-time accommodation. That did not exactly emerge with crystal clarity from what the hon. Gentleman said.
If we wish to debate homelessness, we ought to look at its causes. The number of households housed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 is rising. Why? Fundamentally, the causes are social. They arise from changing values and expectations, and from the loosening of family ties. The break-up of marriages caused 19 per cent. of homeless acceptances in 1986—up from 15 per cent. in 1978. Thirty-nine per cent. became homeless because parents or friends would no longer accommodate them. There are rising numbers of illegitimate children. These were 17 per cent. of all births in 1984, up from 6 per cent. in 1961. One-parent families are now 13 per cent. of all families, compared with 8 per cent. in 1971. Young people are leaving home earlier and expect to be housed.
There is also the "Dick Whittington" factor.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Ridley: People move to London because they believe that there will be better opportunities there, that the streets are paved with gold. Dick Whittington had to trudge through Camden, where he left his cat, and Islington, where he heard the bells, but, being a good entrepreneur, he sensibly chose the City, rather than one of the Labour London boroughs. Although he became Lord Mayor of London, this was not by twin-tracking with Southwark council, and he was certainly not boosted by any "engines of growth".
We cannot control these social factors. We cannot force people to behave differently, nor do we wish to.
Dr. Cunningham: It is because of Government policy.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman consistently misses the point. He does it on purpose. He is trying to say that homelessness is in some way the result of Government policy. He knows from those figures that it is the result of changing social practice, and it is about time that he acknowledged this to be so.
Dr. Cunningham: We have the incredible proposition by the Secretary of State that changing social conditions have nothing to do with Government policy and that the Government have no responsibility for what is happening. It is a preposterous thing to say.
Mr. Ridley: Now we have it. The Labour party would stop people from leaving home and getting divorced. What penalty will it bring out against one-parent families, because that is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks?
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Ridley: No, the hon. Gentleman does not ask good enough questions.
Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State saying that the moving hand has written and that nothing can pull it back; that he has no responsibility for unemployment and for the collapse in house building?
Mr. Ridley: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. Let me explain again. The cause of the rise of homelessness is the change in the way that people are behaving.
Mr. Allan Roberts: What about unemployment?
Mr. Ridley: I do not think that people's marriages break up because of unemployment. They break up because they are—
Mr. Roberts rose—
Mr. Ridley: No, I have a lot to say. The hon. Gentleman would be better seen and not heard in the debate.
We cannot control these social factors. We cannot force people to behave differently. I do not intend to do so, nor do I wish to do so, but we can try to make people take a more realistic view of their prospects of getting a house. This year we are giving over £500,000 to bodies providing practical advice and help to the homeless. For example, through the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless Trust we fund a leaflet aimed at school leavers and other young people, but I suspect that, as always, social factors are stronger than the advice.
In addition, the demand for rented housing increases because for many people housing benefit means that the cost of housing is virtually zero. If a commodity costs little or nothing, demand is unrealistically high. Maintaining a separate household costs a certain amount, so there are costs involved, but housing benefit makes it easier for people who are in the lowest income groups to move away from home and be rehoused under the homeless persons legislation. [Interruption.] I am not complaining about this. I am merely explaining the reasons for homelessness. The Opposition are getting terribly over-excited, but I am merely telling them what the problem that we are debating is all about.
Nobody wants to keep unhappy families together. I accept that we have a responsibility to provide financial assistance at the bottom end of the market so that everyone can afford a home, but undoubtedly the benefit system increases demand for rented housing. That is why there is growing demand, but what about the supply? Overall, nationally there is no shortage of housing. Our projections of household growth in England to the end of the century show an increase in need averaging 100,000 per year. That is much slower than over the last two decades.
New building and conversions by the private sector are already proving more than sufficient to cover this amount. Last year private builders completed about 159,000 homes, not the 150,000 which the hon. Member for Copeland so meticulously misquoted. That is the highest level since 1973. There is also no shortage of dwellings overall, in either the owner-occupied or the rented sector. However, there is a serious mismatch in the rented sector. in that there are surpluses in parts of the north and shortages in parts of the south.
Mr. John Powley: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point about the social changes that have taken place. Does he agree with the view that I have formed over the past five to 10 years, that one of the
186
problems is that we are a long way from making the most efficient use of our housing stock, in both the owner-occupied sector and in the public rented sector? In some cases one or two people occupy three-bedroom houses, and such inefficient use of our housing stock is part of the problem.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. I shall later cover that ground. The first thing to do is to make proper use of the houses that we have. The crucial difference is that there is a healthy market in one sector, the owner-occupied sector, but not in the other.
Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the last time. He is rather keen to jump up and down.
Mr. Roberts: The Secretary of State talks about owner-occupied houses. Is he aware that fairly new estates of 30 to 40 houses built about a year ago by Wimpey in my constituency on land provided mainly by the local authority are standing empty because people have had to default on their mortgages as a result of sudden unemployment and hand in their keys? House prices are falling in that area because of unemployment. Do the Government not have some responsibility for those houses standing empty in the owner-occupied sector? Do they not have a responsibility for that kind of homelessness?
Mr. Ridley: I do not know the houses that the hon. Gentleman speaks about. Policies should be directed to bringing empty homes in the public and private sectors back into use.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Ridley: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have St. Vitus's dance. If he would sit quietly for about 10 more minutes he might learn something.
The market for owner-occupied housing is thriving and growing. Since 1979, over 2 million people have become owner-occupiers and 65 per cent. of houses in England are now owner-occupied. Under the next Conservative Government we hope that between 70 and 75 per cent. of households will be owner-occupiers. That is 1 million more home owners. That healthy market simply does not exist in the rented sector in this country. It exists in other countries.
The private rented sector in Britain has diminished by 75 per cent. since 1950. Everyone knows the reason for that, except apparently the hon. Member for Copeland, who was unable to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The hon. Gentleman exhibited extraordinary evasion. He said that he would answer my hon. Friend later, but he did not do so. The reasons are the effects of 58 years of Rent Acts in destroying the economic case for investment in rented accommodation. That is the reason, not the reason given by the hon. Member for Copeland. The private rented stock has deteriorated and dwindled. There are now over 500,000 empty properties in the private sector, many of which could and would and should be used for rented accommodation. This has been allowed to happen because the Opposition have never dropped their vendetta against the private landlord. They have a heavy responsibility to bear. The problem of homelessness is part of it and should be laid at their door.
Dr. Cunningham: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will he explain why the fastest decline in the private rented sector occurred after the passing by a Conservative Government of the Rent Act 1957? That measure decontrolled rents and led to Rachmanism. That led to the biggest decline in the private rented sector.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is often rusty on these matters. Rachmanism was caused by the Rent Acts, not by decontrol. He should know that. The decline has been continuous since 1919. At some times it is faster than at others.
Mr. Marlow: Is it not possible that my right hon. Friend is right in his answer, in that in other countries in the European Community there is a large private rented sector without any Rachmanism?
Mr. Ridley: Rachmanism is about ending tenancies that are controlled in order to make better use of property by selling it in a buoyant market. If tenancies are not controlled, Rachmanism cannot happen. The results of the Opposition's doctrinaire approach that all housing should be provided by the state, by central and local government, have become clear even to them.
They have begun to acknowledge the immobility, the soullessness and the misery of the municipal tower block and the monolithic council estate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for his courage in recent speeches in trying to put people's needs in front of the ideology of public ownership. I hope that the majority of his colleagues will come to agree with him. Young people looking for jobs or starting out, people who are not in priority categories and have not spent time on a housing waiting list, have virtually no chance of finding rented accommodation.
Moreover, conditions are often bad. Much of the public rented stock is in poor condition because the rent paid is not adequate to pay for the maintenance and repairs that are needed. There is a chronic lack of mobility because there is no market. Many council estates add bad and insensitive management to bad and insensitive architecture—a grisly legacy of the 1960s and the god of municipal social engineering. There is, thank goodness, an emerging public consensus that the experience of public sector building for rent is that much of it has been an expensive failure.
Despite the fact that the Labour party recognises that public sector provision and management are often inadequate, its answer to the problem is to throw more public money at public sector house building. The hon. Member for Copeland did it again today. This is simply nonsense, and it is nonsense for three reasons. First, as I have said, in many areas there is a surplus of council housing, not a shortage. Secondly, we must learn from the mistakes of the past. Lack of choice in the public sector is just as off-putting to people as is the poor quality of much of the rented stock. The combination of the two makes people feel trapped and they wish to escape. The dominance of public rented accommodation in some areas has driven out the enterprising.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ridley: I shall give way once. I have more to say and I wish to let other hon. Members have an opportunity to take part in the debate.
Mr. Raynsford: If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of choice, will he accept that the 7,000 families in bed-and-breakfast hotels would like the choice of a rented council house? They would have that choice if the Government allowed the councils the money to build houses.
Mr. Ridley: I should not have given way, because I was just about to deal with finance and that would have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
Public renting in some areas has driven out the enterprising. It has driven out those who create jobs and those able to exercise housing choice. It has contributed to the social imbalance and decline of inner-city areas. More council house building is not the right solution
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman, as always, puts politics before arithmetic. There never could he enough public capital for a massive programme of council house building, on top of the need to repair all the council-owned properties that have fallen into disrepair. Additional public capital becomes available where councils have sold dwellings to tenants. The policy of selling council houses to tenants has generated £10 billion for reinvestment in the stock. The hon. Gentleman is wooing Tory local councils by promising to let them spend their accumulated capital receipts.
Mr. Greville Janner: Why do the Government not do that?
Mr. Ridley: I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the greatest receipts do not correspond to the greatest needs. The friend of the hon. Member for Copeland, Mrs. Margaret Hodge, the leader of Islington council, to whom he referred today—someone with whom I am not always in full agreement—pointed out the folly of the hon. Gentleman's ways in an article in January's edition of New Socialist. The article said:
"The Front Bench's attitude is unhelpful. They mean to retain the extensive capital controls of the 1980 Act and simply to allow Councils the free use of capital receipts. As it is the low spending, low need and mainly Tory authorities which hold capital receipts they would get the first bite of a fixed spending total."
That is quite correct, and that is why, within the total provision for local authorities for housing investment of £2922 billion next year, we are continuing to maintain the proportion of accumulated receipts that councils can spend at 20 per cent. per annum. This enables us to keep allocations higher and target the money to areas of higher need in the inner cities, where the need is to maintain and repair the existing stock. Those with the receipts can use them over time, but we have put the high need areas first. Inner-city authorities can improve their entitlements by selling houses to tenants and by releasing land to private developers, but too many are reluctant to do so.
The hon. Member for Copeland, despite the pressures on him, has not proposed an end to the controls on borrowing. He knows that to do so would wreck the economic strategy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Allowing councils free use of capital receipts would inevitably increase borrowing, because most of the capital receipts have already been used to repay debts or to lend internally. That means that if authorities with receipts use them there will be less within the borrowing ceiling for everyone else. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that. Indeed, it must be awful to have to learn one's mathematics from Margaret Hodge. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman.

189
The planned level of capital spending by local authorities has been increased by £390 million over this year's plans, partly because of the increased receipts under the right to buy. There is £75 million available for Estate Action next year—an increase of £25 million. It has a specific remit to tackle the disrepair and improve management of the most difficult inner-city estates. We are giving the Housing Corporation a gross allocation of £705 million next year, which will allow it to give approval to some 22,000 new homes for rent and for sale. Within that, its allocation for new fair rents and shared ownership projects in housing stress areas are being increased by 9 per cent. to £390 million, and we have asked it to give priority to help for homeless families and people looking to move for jobs.
I come back to the point that the problem of the rented sector is the absence of a market. Demand is not constrained by price, and supply is not directly related to demand. Under these circumstances, the substitute for the market is waiting lists and queues. Housing is no exception.
I must tell the House about when I bought a shirt in Moscow. There is only one shop in Moscow that I was allowed to go to, and when I arrived there I had to queue for 20 minutes. When I reached the head of the queue I was asked, "What sort of shirt would you like? You can have a large or small one." I said that I wanted a large one. I then went to the bottom of the next queue and queued for a further 20 minutes. When I arrived at the head of the queue I was given a docket, and I paid the specific number of roubles for the shirt. I then had to go into a third queue, and when I got to the head of that queue 20 minutes later I exchanged the docket for the shirt. That is what happens if there is not a market.
The economy of planning and allocation, which the Opposition always favour, is inefficient. It means that people have to wait. It means that people do not get what they want because there is no choice. In housing the problem is more serious. People suffer more if those who manage the system add to the inefficiency of the planned economy their own peculiar brand of inefficiency which the Audit Commission has found in certain authorities run by the hon. Gentleman's friends.
Such a system also means rules. Politicians must categorise and judge priorities between those who are genuinely homeless, those who have been a long time on the waiting list, those who are intentionally homeless, and those who do not fall into priority need categories. There has to be rationing. It is impossible to have a system where large numbers of people can demand a free home, more or less where they like, and be entitled to get one immediately. That is why we need more hostel accommodation. We need it so that those who manage the public rented stock can put people in temporary accommodation while they assess their need for housing. We also need it so that people who are not in priority need categories at least have the opportunity, so far as possible with the present crazy rented system, to find accommodation.
Within the Housing Corporation allocations we have given an extra £20 million specifically for new schemes, mixing 30 per cent. grant with private finance, to build self-contained units for families in bed-and-breakfast accomodation, and young job movers. This, together with
190
a £10 million of challenge funding, should generate £100 million of housing investment. My hon. Friend's announcement of last Thursday that we are prepared to approve similar schemes for local authorities' funding of housing association schemes in co-operation with the private sector will enable councils further to facilitate that sort of development.
I must express astonishment at the fact that the hon. Member for Copeland never mentioned the Rent Acts, particularly when my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne pressed him on the matter. I am astonished that he did not turn his guns on the way in which certain local authorities manage and administer their responsibilities under the homelessness legislation. In 1977 the House gave local authorities the responsibility for housing the homeless. The vast majority carry out that function efficiently and well, but the greatest problems are here in London, and those problems are compounded by the inefficiency of certain local authorities, especially the famous eight Labour boroughs. They will be recorded in Labour folklore in the same way as the Tolpuddle martyrs, the Shrewsbury three, and now Kinnock's eight dented shields and all. They are not carrying out their duties to house the homeless effectively because of their gross inefficiency, bad management and misuse of resources.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at the weekend on his visit to Leeds about "statutory minimum standards" and his "Quality Commission". What is the point of that if it is not to deal with Kinnock's eight? He should stop beholding the mote that is in his brother's eye, and consider the beam that is in his own eye.
Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State is wrong. I made no reference to statutory minima. The right hon. Gentleman is quoting someone else's speech. As the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Audit Commission report, may I refer him to page 15, in connection with money for housing in London, where it says:
"Expenditure on housing improvements in London needs to be increased, yet capital allocations for housing to local authorities in Greater London have fallen from £1·5 billion in 1979–80 to under £500 million last year: and London's share has fallen from 35 per cent. to under 30 per cent."
That is what the Audit Commission says about the right hon. Gentleman's policies on housing finance in London.
Mr. Ridley: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own policy document. I read the Labour party's "Future of Local Government" and quoted precisely from it.
Mr. Allan Roberts: It was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
Mr. Ridley: There are so many dogmas that I might have been mistaken about which was which. If it was not in the hon. Gentleman's speech, it was in the Labour party's policy document. It does not matter which: the hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it.
The hon. Member for Copeland talked about resources and quoted from the Audit Commission's report. There are massive resources, but they are being misused. For example, in September last year, in Tyne and Wear 128 households were in temporary accommodation, 49 of them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. At the same time, there were nearly 6,296 empty council houses.
Moving to London, let us look at the record of Kinnock's eight. The House should listen. In Islington

191
there are 2,271 empty council-owned properties, 5·5 per cent. of the stock—the eighth worst record in the country. Hackney has 3,111 empty properties, 6·8 per cent. of its stock—the fourth worst in the country. The hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) are here. Newham has 2,420 empty council-owned properties, 7·8 per cent. of the stock—the second worst in the country.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way. How can Labour Members complain about homelessness and about there being nowhere for people to go when all those grossly inefficient Labour councils are keeping all those houses empty?
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way. These councils take an average of 20 weeks, going on for half a year, to re-let houses, compared with authorities elsewhere with similar problems which take on average between nine and 13 weeks, and even that is too long. Wandsworth takes only three weeks. The hon. Member for Copeland says that these councils are short of financial resources.
Dr. Cunningham: No, the Audit Commission says that.
Mr. Ridley: I do not care who says it. Quite apart from the hundreds of millions of pounds—
Dr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ridley: No, I must get on.
Dr. Cunningham: Give way.
Mr. Ridley: I give way for the last time.
Dr. Cunningham: As the Secretary of State does not care about the first reference from the Audit Commission's report, perhaps he will care about the second, in paragraph 58 of its conclusions, when, referring to inner London authorities, about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking, it said:
"Inner London authorities cannot be expected to tackle their local housing problems without at least unfettered access to future capital receipts, the ability to fund capital expenditure from revenue and reasonable confidence about the level of borrowing approvals over the next few years. Additional borrowing will also be necessary".
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that recommendation by the Audit Commission?
Mr. Ridley: It is a mistake. I am coming to all that.
Dr. Cunningham: What is the answer?
Mr. Ridley: May I be allowed to make my speech and give the hon. Member for Copeland the answer in what I shall say? The hon. Gentleman wants me to give the answer before I give it. That is ridiculous. He says that councils are short of financial resources.
Dr. Cunningham: The Audit Commission says that.
Mr. Ridley: I accept that the Audit Commission says that those councils are short of funds.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Do not quote it at us again.
Mr. Ridley: I accept what the hon. Member for Copeland says, that the Audit Commission says that the councils are short of financial resources. Quite apart from the millions of pounds that those councils could save if
192
they eliminated inefficiency, and quite apart from the £20 million that the Audit Commission says they spend on "gesturing and zealotry", they have borrowed enormous amounts of money through creative accounting devices. They are now starting to pawn the council tenants' lavatories and bath taps. Ealing has pawned them for £30 million. How can those councils be short of money if they have done that? It is rich for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to accuse the Government of the "economics of the pawnshop." That is what happens in Kinnock's eight.
Those councils have allowed rent arrears to build up uncontrolled until they average 26 per cent. of their annual rent bills. I concede that these are some of the authorities that face the worst problems, but that means that they should be more than averagely competent in managing them. Even with the massive creative accounting resources at their disposal they seem incapable of tackling the real management task of housing people under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
Every night in London about 5,000 households are accommodated in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, yet there are 113,000 empty council-owned properties in England, nearly 28,000 of them in London. Why are they not being used? There is also money available in our housing allocations and through Estate Action to enable councils to bring empty properties into use, yet Lambeth and Brent have turned down special help from Estate Action to ease their homelessness problem. The one significant contribution that the Labour party could make to solving the problem of homelessness is to tell their friends in local government to stop their political interference and let their officers get on with the job of managing properly. The Labour party if failing the nation by its approach to homelessness. Indeed, it just does not care.
In the long run, we must create a market in rented housing based on a private sector response to demand. The interest is there. The resources are certainly there. With record levels of fixed investment in the rest of the economy generating economic growth, it is tragic that the rented sector is still the poor relation. The demand for rented housing is certainly there. The will is certainly here among Conservative Members. For the sake of all those who are looking for rented housing, I pray that the Labour party will shed its ideology and rise to the challenge. If the Labour party does not do so, we shall go ahead without it.
5.27 pm
Mr. Reg Freeson: We have listened to a rather sad speech. I do not intend to follow it. It would be extremely difficult to do so and to comment on all the detailed convoluted nonsense in the speech. I shall, however, pick up some of the points that were made towards the end of the speech, because they are directly relevant to a matter on which I wish to concentrate.
The Secretary of State referred to Brent as an example of what should be done—and is not—to help homeless families. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not up to date. I shall pick up some of his points, in which he was not only not in full knowledge of the facts but in which he contradicted statements issued by his Department. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Estate Action programme, which has been rejected by Brent. Perhaps he will therefore explain to the House, to me and to Brent

193
why press releases have been sent to me by the Government, as well as by Brent council, announcing the receipt of several million pounds jointly negotiated between Brent council and the Department of the Environment for just those special estates.
It is about time that these exaggerations, inaccuracies and misleading statements by the Government should cease, because they are a total denial of what is happening. The millions of pounds are being negotiated and they will be applied as the Secretary of State's Department and my town hall have told me.
In Brent, 800 to 900 families are in homeless family accommodation. The bulk of them are in bed-and-breakfast hotels. They have the "roofs over their heads" to which the Secretary of State referred earlier. Whatever may be the social causes of that homelessness, which the Secretary of State rather peculiarly sought to put to the House, there are answers to it now. Whatever the causes of homelessness, those answers consist—if the Secretary of State will listen to these important points, whether or not he will act upon them—of providing the capital and the revenue resources as well as good management to the local authorities concerned to provide the dwellings that those homeless families require.
The plain fact is that, in the local authority and housing association sectors, there has been a reduction of 40 to 50 per cent. in the capital required to build new homes and to purchase and modernise old rundown empty dwellings, including many Victorian dwellings in my borough and elsewhere, convert them into decent modern dwellings and rehouse homeless and other families. That capital is not being made available.
Reference has been made to the large number of empty dwellings. I do not know what the up-to-date figure is, but those dwellings are certainly not to be found wholly on those estates which the Secretary of State wrongly stated would not be improved by my local authority with the help of the Department of the Environment. They will be. However, scores of dwellings are standing empty and are deteriorating week after week, month after month and in some cases year after year, because the Secretary of State's Department will not give the local authority concerned permission to undertake the works on them because it considers that the unit costs are too high.
No matter how many times professional officers revise the schemes and put them forward, they are rejected. The schemes relate to single dwellings and to whole blocks of flats in my constituency that are standing empty and rotting. All that is required is for the DOE, with the Minister's permission, to put a stop to this disgraceful bouncing of schemes, month after month and year after year, and to get those dwellings put into decent condition and used for homeless families whose number is growing.
I shall now refer to one specific area of housing policy and to the somewhat misleading statement that was made last Thursday in the House by the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. I am glad to see that the Minister is now taking his place. In the first part of the statement, he said that he would introduce legislation to enable local authorities to do what the Housing Corporation already does in a few schemes—that is, to marry housing association grant to private capital and so
194
draw in private capital to public housing. But even that aspect of the legislation that the Minister announced last Thursday was not accurately described.
The scheme will be a revenue scheme and not a capital grant scheme related to private investment. It will involve annual revenue moneys, and I have yet to see how that can be related to housing capital allocations, as the Minister then described; but no doubt we will learn more. However, I do not want to concentrate on that but on the main burden of the Minister's statement and the consultative document on the proposed legislation that he placed in the Library and which I have read several times.
It is already quite clear that, as a consequence of the statement on the proposed legislation, which announced a deadline at midnight last Thursday against any further private capital schemes being negotiated by local authorities, there will be a major reduction, not increase, in private capital coming into rented housing through the agency of housing associations and local authorities. My local authority—which is much criticised by the Secretary of State—has, like many others, negotiated over months with housing associations and with private sources of finance about £100 million-worth of guaranteed private money to be injected into housing association work. The Minister is putting at risk schemes that have been freely, sensibly and imaginatively explored negotiated by housing associations and local authorities throughout the country.
On Monday I had discussions with a welfare housing association which wanted to put up sheltered housing for the elderly. It cannot do so, although the plans have been approved, because the capital allocated to my borough by the Government through the Housing Corporation is not enough to allow it to proceed. Therefore, I discussed with the welfare housing association alternative ways of handling the financial problem. One of the ways that I discussed with the appropriate officer in the town hall was the possibility of the local authority giving a guarantee for a private loan to enable the association at least to buy the site which now stands a chance of being put on the market for private purposes in an area which is in great need of such welfare housing. If the welfare housing association does not obtain that site by March, it will no longer be available to it despite all the work that the association has done over many months to prepare that scheme for elderly people. Because of the midnight bar, the welfare housing association cannot get the local authority to negotiate that loan by way of a guarantee.
I shall give another, bigger example. Recently, in my borough, we have formed, on the initiative of two or three housing associations, building societies and the council, a housing trust called Homelease. Its purpose is to create, as it is entitled to, a trading company to buy private properties on the market that are in need of modernisation, repair and conversion so as to take families out of bed-and-breakfast hotels in Paddington and rehouse them in permanent accommodation. The housing trust required a guarantee to get the private funding. It was estimated that about £37 million had to be borrowed over the next three years or so to provide about 150 dwellings per year, decent family flats, for homeless families.
That is now at risk unless the agreement that the housing trust managed to scrape through by midnight on Thursday stands. Unless that stands, the housing trust cannot proceed and the whole exercise that took about 18

195
months to negotiate is at risk of collapsing. Even if that immediate scheme does not collapse, any future proposals will become subject to risk.
Two or three other housing associations have done the same thing. That scheme is not singular to Brent. It has been going on in London boroughs and cities such as Sheffield and other boroughs in a big way. It is something to be applauded, not to be knocked on the head and restricted as it is by all the conditions which have been laid down in the consultative document. I have read that document and it has been read by the National Federation of Housing Associations, by housing directors and building society representatives and others with whom I have been in touch. They have read it and have said that the criteria that the Government are introducing under the new control will make it extremely difficult—that is putting it mildly—for the schemes that have been negotiated to operate.
What is even more important at this stage is that it has killed off the morale of professional people who have spent weeks and months, and in some cases even years, negotiating such deals. What does the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he is the man really behind this—think is going to be the effect on people in the private sector who have spent months of professional officers' time negotiating schemes of this kind, which have now been blocked? I too have been involved. We were fooled.
Last Thursday's statement was complicated, and when we got to the end I said to an hon. Friend beside me, "That is the key." The reality is not the liberalisation of local authority rights to put public money in with private money. The real and central theme of the statement and the legislation that is proposed is to stop local authorities and housing associations doing what they have freely negotiated to do, which is to get private money in on top of their public sector finance. I hope, no matter how strongly I am speaking now, that the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and other Ministers—I do not blame the Minister entirely; the Chancellor is behind it—will change their minds.
If they now have to commit themselves to the policy contained in the statement last Thursday at least let them adopt a liberal approach. If they do not, no matter how slow it may be in coming—it is a complicated subject to make a quick drama about—there will be a justifiable explosion of anger in the housing association movement, the building societies and other financial institutions which have willingly gone along and wanted to participate in and produce these joint schemes. For heaven's sake, let us get some sense and get away from the stupid Treasury ideology that drove the Department of the Environment to draft that statement last Thursday which will kill off the provision of housing for the homeless rather than encourage it.
5.42 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: It is over 10 years since I took part in a housing debate in the Chamber. Listening to the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) brings a strong sense of deja vu and deja entendu. I remember that at one time I was a shadow spokesman on housing and the environment and the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Housing and Construction. I remember before that the protracted
196
battles over the Housing Finance Act 1972 and I caught echoes of his familiar voice and ideas in what he said just now.
The right hon. Gentleman has been excessively crabbing about what the Government have been doing for the housing associations this year. I will not follow up his comments in detail but in the magazine Voluntary Housing of January this year there is an article entitled "Review" by Mr. Best. It says:
"The best news about funding through the Housing Corporation next year is that the mainstream fair rent programme will be bigger."
He then goes on to say:
"in place of 14,400 rented homes in 1986–87, associations in England will provide some 18,320 homes for rent…The Housing Association Movement will easily clear its 'base line' of 20,000 rented homes next year."
It cannot be said that the magazine, which after all is produced by people who know the subject, takes such a gloomy view as the right hon. Gentleman.
The picture today does not suggest that the overall state of our housing is in decline.. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) tried to say that it was so but the figures do not bear that out. There is a steady excess in the number of dwellings over the number of households. That has been maintained, as the recent figures and social trends confirm. Overcrowding has declined and amenities have improved. The number of houses with a bath or shower has increased. In 1979, 95 per cent. of houses had a bath or shower and by 1984 it was 97 per cent. The number of houses without central heating fell from 45 per cent. to 34 per cent. over that period—and so on. Clearly, there has been a steady improvement in the overall availability and quality of housing.
Mr. Allan Roberts: If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Building Employers Confederation, not known for its support of the Labour party but rather for the Conservative party, wrote to us in a briefing for the debate today:
"There has also been a marked deterioration in housing conditions."?
It says that there are
"only 200,000 starts per year—a cumulative shortfall of some three quarters of a million. As a result of this shortfall there has been a marked increase in homelessness. In England alone it now stands at 94,000 families."
The Building Employers Confederation could hardly he accused of political bias.
Mr. Raison: I accept that its political leaning is in our direction, but it has an obvious interest in providing more buildings. Of course it will produce arguments to support that point of view.
Although I believe that the general picture is one of improvement, we all recognise that there are severe specific problems that must be tackled. The anxiety about homelessness, which has been considerable for some time, was obviously brought to a head, perhaps in an emotional way, at the sight of people living in cardboard boxes during the freezing weather conditions and so on. That is
an important part of the subject of the debate and we would be wrong to shrug it off.
As I understand it, figures show that last March about 14,400 households were in temporary accommodation. As we know from the figures, there is a steady rise in acceptances as homeless. In 1978 53,000 households were accepted, in 1984 83,550 households were accepted and the figure for last year seems to be over 100,000. Of course that

197
is a substantial figure, but most people would say that even more worrying than acceptances—after all, they were people who were housed—is the unknown number of people who were not eligible to be treated as homeless but who, nevertheless, were homeless. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies he may be able to give us more detail than I have been able to discover about the extent of the problem. We know that it is there, and we have to face it.
We know that it is a remarkably difficult problem. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, at the heart of this lies social change; changes in patterns of social behaviour. It is no good trying to duck that fact. The figures that I use are from the second quarter of 1986. They show that, among the homeless households accepted, 41 per cent. were cases where parents, relatives or friends were no longer able or willing to accommodate the people concerned. A total of 20 per cent. stemmed from the breakdown of relationships with partners. I do not know the figures for those who were not accepted but we can see something that must concern us and which is a difficult problem to tackle.
I do not think that we can say simply that everybody who becomes homeless, for whatever reason, has an absolute and total right to a house. The Opposition motion puts forward a programme designed to ensure that everybody is housed. I am not clear whether they are saying that there is either an absolute right to housing or an absolute duty to provide housing for every person. Perhaps we will hear more about that.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Yes.
Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman, who is apparently a power in this realm, says, "Yes"—that the Labour party does say that.
Mr. Roberts: The Labour party believes that a decent home is a right, not a privilege, and that it should be provided so that it is available for everybody in the way that health care and education should be available. It is not a case of being able to buy if one is rich and being homeless if one is poor. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when rich people have marital problems and separations it does not result in their becoming homeless.
Mr. Raison: We want to know, and perhaps we will discover from the debate, whether, when the hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party believes that everyone has a right to housing, it means to enforce that by a statutory right to housing, or what I suppose is technically more feasible, a statutory duty to provide housing for every person, whatever their conditions, who applies for it. I do not know whether it is Labour party policy. It is not enough to get up and say in a generalised way that everybody has a right. If the Labour party means that, presumably it will require, as I have said, either a statutory right comparable to the right to buy a council house or a statutory duty on local authorities to provide housing for everybody come what may.
Mr. Allan Roberts: In the Labour party's policy statement, "Homes for the Future" there is a whole section on the right to rent as well as the right to buy. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read our policy documents as assiduously as the Secretary of State does; he would then know that that was our policy.
Mr. Raison: If the Labour party has adopted the absolute right that I have suggested, the hon. Gentleman will find that he runs into great difficulties of cost and common sense. He would be embarking on an open-ended commitment which, in reality, it would be impossible to fulfil and which will, therefore, join the ranks of Labour's broken promises without doing much good for the people it is supposed to be trying to help. I do not believe that that is the answer, any more than I believe that we should regard housng as a kind of general social service. Obviously, there is a social service element in housing policy, but we should make much more progress if we considered housing primarily as an economic commodity which can be provided through the market rather than something to be regarded as a social service. That has been the experience of recent years and we should be foolish to move away from that. However, we have a problem and we must face it. The only answer to homelessness and the other remaining housing problems has much to do with finding ways of increasing the available housing stock, especially in places where it is most needed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was absolutely right to say that the impact of rent control legislation since the first world war has made life very difficult, although there were admirable motives behind such measures. We cannot read accounts of life in Victorian England and not be struck by the fact that one could always rent a reasonable house. There was no hassle about it. That facility has been destroyed by successive legislation. It is important to try to get back to that picture.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction and his predecessor have introduced various measures designed to liberalise the private rented market. I welcome those moves, but I think that we all accept that they have not solved the problem. We hope that the Government will introduce bold measures. People often say that we must wait for a consensus, but if we wait for a consensus, especially if we wait for the Opposition, we shall be well into the 21st century before anything is produced.
The Government must be bold. They must forget the fears of Rachmanism, which was a phenomenon of 30 years ago. We must take our courage in our hands and try to provide what many recognise as the most flexible form of housing. Therefore, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's reply to the debate, when I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement.
Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raison: No; I must get on.
The key to our housing policy in the next decade must be flexible housing. The tremendous triumph of the sale of council houses during the past few years showed boldness. Many people were very dubious about that bold policy, but I hope that that success will be copied in the private rented sector. However, I recognise that such a radical reform will not solve the immediate problem in the next few years. There are people who badly need rented housing of one kind or another. Of course, it is the homeless who must inevitably fall into that category. That leads us to the two questions of council housing and housing association housing.
I agree with the long-term objective of moving people out of council housing, provided that is what they want.

199
We should not go so far as to dismiss council housing as a useful vehicle for providing new housing in the immediate future. Some parts of the country with housing needs are not stocked with old Victorian houses that can be divided, sublet, and so on. Aylesbury has virtually no residue of that kind of housing and there is little alternative at present to providing council housing for people who have that kind of need. I do not feel any deep abhorrence when I look at the council houses in my constituency. I do not object to the fact that the council has been providing new housing in my constituency. We should look at the matter pragmatically, rather than get caught in some kind of ideological hang-up.
We should look more towards housing associations to fill our housing needs. I welcome the step taken to provide a mix of housing association money with private sector money. Progress has been made in Wales in particular to that end. I think that the idea that housing association money can be stretched much further through that kind of partnership, with private sector housing money coming from the building societies and elsewhere, is of great importance.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raison: No.
Nothing in housing will be a cure-all. The formula of the 30 per cent. element will work only in areas where there is some flexibility and the ability to meet higher rents. The January issue of Voluntary Housing made it clear that it is not appropriate for every part of the country. Nevertheless, what is being done is most exciting and positive.
Again, Mr. Best says:
"The combining of public and private finance has long seemed to us to be a key to getting more out of the tax-payer's contribution. This breakthrough is a vital starting point."
It seems that we have something which my right hon. Friend has done a great deal to stimulate, and I give him my full backing.
There is a specific and serious problem of housing within the overall picture of a general improvement. We shall not solve that problem unless we get to grips with renting. The reform of the private rented sector is a crucial element but what I have said about the housing associations would make a substantial difference. I believe that the policies of my right hon. Friend point in the right direction, and I hope that he will be able to press on with them as rapidly as possible.
5.57 pm
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I commend the Labour party for the serious terms in which the motion is couched. I regret that it did not draw a better response from the Secretary of State. The Government's action is not only wholly at odds with expressed Government aims in housing but is also completely baffling even within Conservative philosophy.
Housing has suffered a cut of 60 per cent. That is the highest cut of all in real terms over the past eight years. I cannot understand why a Government who believe in good housekeeping would let the fabric of housing in this country decline so much that it requires far more money now to restore it even to minimum habitable standards. People have to try to cope with the deteriorating fabric of their accommodation. They feel hopelessly inadequate when they have to try to deal with it out of their own
200
resources. It has become a serious social and financial problem. Each cut increases in real terms the amount that will eventually be required to restore housing to any kind of reasonable standard.
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction is aware of the problem of Reema buildings. Leeds has the largest number of such buildings, but around the country there are about 15,000 such dwellings. One of the problems is that no two blocks are exactly the same. That causes additional difficulties. Thousands of people still live in such houses, but we do not yet have a solution to the problem. If those houses have to he demolished, that will put further pressure on an already overcrowded housing market. So far as we can see, no effort is being made to solve the problem of housing and to consider whether the cuts will cause more expenditure later.
All parties are concerned about the number of empty houses at this time of housing need, and we are seriously hampered by Government policies. For example, the limit of 20 per cent. of capital receipts for reinvestment makes it difficult for local authorities to solve their own problems out of the money that they have gained from council house sales. One of the ways used by the Government to persuade reluctant Labour authorities to sell council houses was to tell them that the money would be available for their own capital spending, but that did not happen.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Does the hon. Gentleman share the view of the September 1984 Liberal assembly? Would he deny the right to buy for those entering into a coalition, or does he share the view of the Government and of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that that freedom should continue?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I hope that the House accepts that I am a fair man in these matters. I shall deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) when I come to the question of rented accommodation If he feels that I have not, no doubt he will remind me.
In addition to the problem of the limitation to 20 per cent., we must consider the wholly inadequate housing investment programme allocations. I do not accept that the Dutch auction is the best way of dealing with HIP allocations; it can mean that councils greatly overbid because they are trying to get a higher allocation. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that the amounts being made available in areas of great housing need are simply inadequate. A further problem was the announcement last week of still further restrictions on private cash coming into that sector.
An article in today's edition of The Independent makes the point that the alliance-controlled authority of Tower Hamlets has been prevented from introducing a scheme that would have made some impact on the problem by housing 600 homeless families. That scheme has been caught by the Minister's midnight deadline of a few days ago. It is ridiculous for Ministers to express their worries about housing by making arbitrary decisions and introducing midnight deadlines, when many local authorities are trying, with the best possible motives, to solve their problems by drawing on private money.
Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman referred to Tower Hamlets being under Liberal control. Does he agree with the new alliance policies on homelessness in Tower

201
Hamlets? In future, offers of accommodation for homeless families will be made irrespective of specified areas of choice.
Unlike other families, homeless families will be housed above the fourth floor in high-rise blocks. Furthermore, the existing standards governing the number of people per dwelling will be ignored, with the result that more people will be occupying each property.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the alliance policy of making homeless families—most of them Bengali—live in high-rise flats above the fourth floor in overcrowded conditions that other families do not have to suffer? History has shown that it is in such flats that people are most likely to suffer racist attacks. Is that a good way of dealing with the problem?
Mr. Meadowcroft: None of the proposed ways of dealing with the problem of homeless families is ideal. However, I do not accept that there is anything to be proud of in the legacy left by the previous Labour council. The immediate solution to a huge problem may not be ideal by any means, but it may be the best available.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) should realise that the fault does not lie with my colleagues in Tower Hamlets. They are rate-capped by this Government to the tune of £124 million, of which their officers now tell them £24 million will be required in the next year to house 1,500 homeless families.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I have given way to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
Mr. Allan Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer the point.
Mr. Meadowcroft: I am happy to answer the point. Twenty per cent. or more of Tower Hamlets' total resources is to go to house 1,500 families, so of course the council is keen to find a solution. The Independent article states that over 600 of those families—[Interruption.] I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Member for Bootle if he continues to chat away so discourteously.
Tower Hamlets had a scheme that could have housed more than 600 families, but that has been stopped by the Minister. If the council is forced into schemes that are less than ideal, I sympathise both with the council and with the families involved.
Mr. Pavitt rose—
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Meadowcroft: I give way to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).
Mr. Pavitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he was diverted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), he made a powerful point about the arrogance shown by the Minister when at 4.30 pm last Thursday he set a deadline for midnight the same night. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) told the House, I managed to get the only available copy of the document in the Library to Brent by two minutes to midnight so that the year's negotiations for the housing assocations—which have been praised by the Government—could be signed before the deadline came into force.
202
Perhaps when the Minister responds to the pertinent point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) he will explain why he gave only seven and a half hours notice. Why were the housing associations, housing corporations, and housing co-operatives, all of which were affected, not given more time to follow up their negotiations?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks. In addition to answering that point, will the Minister tell us whether he will give his consent for schemes such as the Tower Hamlets scheme? Will he regard such schemes sympathetically?
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am loth to display signs of the Bootle syndrome.
I, too, have seen the serious report in that eminently serious newspaper, The Independent. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have already looked into the matter and that this morning my officials spoke to council officers in Tower Hamlets? Is he aware that the scheme was some distance away from signature? Is he further aware that my officials have asked the officers of Tower Hamlets council to keep in close contact, so that we can see whether or not we can give consent to a modified form of the scheme? I am sure that he recognises that we are being eminently reasonable.
Mr. Meadowcroft: Reasonable, but not eminent, I should have thought. I appreciate what the Minister has said. It seems that elections work wonders.
A further huge housing problem is that of system building and high-rise dwellings. I am not desperately concerned at this point to say whose fault it was, but there is no doubt that for some years Governments of both colours put financial pressure on local authorities to build. I have often found it rather odd that local authorities that have paraded their independence and sought desperately to remain independent of central Government have allowed themselves to be forced into such building. Now they say, "We were not really independent. We were forced into building by central Government." It is a shame that more authorities did not hold out against building. It is not merely a question of hindsight, because some authorities saw well ahead that the outcome would be disastrous.
For posterity, let me quote a report from Leeds which goes back to 1906. Alderman Lupton, the Liberal chairman of the then housing committee, which was known as the unhealthy areas committee, wrote:
"The Committee consider that land is so easily attainable at a low price within a mile of the most crowded parts of the city, that it is quite needless to introduce flats…into Leeds; whilst there are objections to them on the score of want of privacy, as well as considerable difficulty in giving proper exercise to young children, who cannot come down from the upper storeys in high buildings, and are therefore shut up in the dwellings whenever their mothers cannot look after them. The same objection applies when one considers the case of the old and infirm"
We discovered exactly those problems 70 or 80 years later and we must face them still. The buildings are still with us in many respects—if not on our skyline, then in our ledgers where the debt charges will remain for many years to come. That applies particularly to the impossibility of coping with deck access dwellings, of which many still remain.

203
Men and women in local government and in central Government, with the best of intentions, but still to disastrous effect, destroyed much improvable housing and replaced it with dwellings that undermined neighbourhoods and dispersed communities. For every three terrace houses demolished in Leeds, only one could he put back in the same place. People were spread around and had to travel greater distances so that communities lost much of their ability to manage themselves. There is no doubt that a policy of more gradual renewal, and the replacement of houses that were incapable of improvement, rather than their demolition, would have been far better.
One of the problems that came out in the Secretary of State's speech is that the Government always deal with units and bricks and mortar. They do not deal with homes. If one confuses houses with homes, one will never get the housing problem right. It is not just a question of building units. People must belong to a community. Bricks and mortar do not make a home. The solution to the problem must be based on all types of tenure, and not limited to either the public or the private sectors. The Centre for Environmental Studies report on the outer estates—one of the most optimistic documents for a long time — shows us how to deal with the legacy of the answers to the problems of the 1930s and 1940s, which have led to our current problems. Stockbridge village is one example; it has its problems but no doubt it will be improved upon in the next experiment of that type involving — [Interruption.] There are other examples as well, such as east Glasgow.
It is ironic that a memorial service was held today for Lord Stockton who, as Minister of Housing in 1954, was responsible for building 310,000 houses, of which 220,000 were council dwellings. After that time, there was a progressive switch from public sector building to private sector building. The disparity was not picked up by the Labour Government and building by Labour authorities tailed off, even into the 1970s. It is a pity that we do not have the same drive to make sure that a variety of housing is available as was shown in 1954.
The Conservative party regularly tries to make a simplistic equation between empty properties and homeless people. Many of the empty properties are simply unlettable. When I served on Leeds council for many years, in a three-party committee meeting the housing managers would provide a list of individual properties empty for more than three months. Committee members questioned why individual dwellings were on the list. The vast bulk in my area were Reema-type maisonettes. However desperate the people were, they would not accept them.
There is a mismatch in the housing area. The hon. Member for Bootle referred to the problems of Tower Hamlets, with its 1,500 homeless families. As the families have an average of five children each, the empty properties are generally smaller and are not suitable for them. Because of that mismatch, it is simplistic to link the statistics. We should not be throwing around figures and trying to link them; to solve the homeless problem we need to provide a variety of housing and choice, rather than simply forcing people into a particular type of tenure in a particular place.
There is an escalator in house: buying trends. Young people in Leeds buy a small back-to-back terraced house when they are first married. However, as they become better off, they might move to a through terrace or even
204
a semi-detached. Later, when the children have moved away, they could go back to a smaller house. If one takes a piece out of the escalator, especially if it is the first step, people cannot get on it. That is the problem today and a change of policy is needed to deal with it. If we are to alter this awful categorisation of public and private, we need to make sure that houses are not identifiable as public or private. However, we have to deal with the attitudes of some developers.
I recall being part of a three-party committee that had discussions with developers in an attempt to persuade them to build a large estate of houses, with the object of the council then buying back 40 per cent. of those houses, scattered throughout the estate, to let to council tenants. It was hoped that in that way, the houses would not be identified as private or public. However, the developers would not do that, because they said that they would be unable to sell the private housing. I did not believe it, but that is what they said. The most they would agree to was to build separate cul-de-sacs of houses with separate access roads. If the Minister wishes to abolish that distinction, he should do more to persuade developers to be more socially oriented.
I have not yet dealt with:he question raised by the hon. Member for York on the right to buy. It has been as much a problem for our party as for the Labour party, because once a right is given, it is difficult to take it back. It would have been easier not to give the right in the first place. I guess that that is why the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has decided that the right to buy must continue. The Alliance agrees that the right to buy will have to stay, but we want to give a greater variety of discounts to local authorities with particular needs. That is a sensible policy. Because of the right to buy, there are fewer good rented properties for those in greatest need.
Constituents tell me that they are desperate to get out of their awful housing in awful areas, but that the best council housing has been sold, especially on the modern estates. Poor people are stuck in accommodation. That is wrong. Local authorities should not simply sell their houses without regard to need, but should endeavour, when adhering to Government policy, to focus on the housing needs within their authorities.
Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to clarify the incredible motion put before the Liberal assembly in September 1984. However, he has not come clean; he is still fudging the issue. Is he saying that a tenant who has purchased a property under the right to buy will then be denied that right by a Liberal council? The Liberal leader in York, which is not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, has said that he will steal back those properties because they should be in the public sector. Will the hon. Gentleman denounce that Liberal leader?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I would want to know the precise circumstances in which that statement was made, and I would do nothing that would undermine a colleague. I am anxious to discuss with York city council the effects of the right-to-buy policy in its council estates and whether, in fact, we should focus the policy in a different way for York, rather than applying the blanket policy throughout the country. I repeat that the right to buy will remain.
Mr. John Patten: When I reply I shall certainly remember that the hon. Gentleman has been courteous enough to give way to me twice. [Laughter]. I dare say that I shall regret that pledge.
The hon. Gentleman is the alliance spokesman on this matter. Is he saying that the SDP has joined the Liberals in stating that there will be not a full-blown right to buy, but a policy of allowing local authorities to decide who shall or shall not buy? Will he give a straight answer?
Mr. Meadowcroft: I stress again that the scale of discounts will focus on the different needs of particular authorities. That is not abolishing the right to buy. We must be careful to make that distinction. If the Minister can afford it, I will sell him a copy of the book in which the policy is set out [Interruption.] I am surprised that he does not have it. [Interruption.] I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me injury time to compensate for these interventions.
We do not intend to view the right to buy in the way that the Government view it- namely, virtually giving away the houses. In a recent court case in Leeds, the recorder said of an estate that had been offered for sale:
"Dare one use that terrible expression, is it a working class, rather than a middle class area?"
A housing official replied:
"It depends what you mean by middle class. Moortown Estate tends to be an area where people buy council houses."
The judge said:
"It's not like Seacroft where you get flats boarded up"
The official replied:
"No. That's a different kettle of fish".
That is intolerable. The difference is that there is a variety of rented accommodation around the country and a blanket policy will not suit all the different authorities. Therefore, we must be more sensitive than the Government in applying the policy.
I shall move on quickly now, as other hon. Members wish to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At least I have support for something. Market forces cannot deliver housing to meet the individual needs of the people. It was interesting that, during questions, the market Conservatives sitting behind the Minister asked for an alteration in planning regulations to enable local authorities to prevent housing being built for a particular sale that was able to command a price on the market rather than to meet the need in the local authorities. It is important for us to accept that market forces will not solve the housing problem.
There is a need for the third sector in which housing associations can draw in private money and, with a modicum of subsidy, can ensure that rents are fixed at reasonable levels. That could provide a great part of our housing stock.
Renovation must continue in ways that are sensitive to the needs of different areas. When improvement grants were available, it was quite amazing how owners were able and felt it worth their while to put in the rest of the money and improve their houses. That has been eroded over recent years and owners can no longer afford to put money into their own housing stock. Schemes such as the "staying-put" scheme of the Anchor housing association have done a great deal with the small amount of money that is being made available.
Those resources often come from people liberating the money tied up in their houses. I hope that it will be possible
206
to liberate the capital that people have in their houses by flexible schemes from building societies, and that they will be helped and encouraged by the Government.
Finally, I should like to speak about bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the problem of homelessness. There is no way that the present policy is in the slightest way acceptable. It is a bizarre commentary on the Government's failure that this is not strictly a financial problem. The cost of providing homes for people who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would be less than the cost of that bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It would be hard to imagine a greater indictment of the Government than the fact that they find it impossible to find a way of bridging that gap. Alas, we have come to accept the inevitability of bed and breakfast as accommodation for homeless people. That is absolutely intolerable and the Government must find a way to link the resources put into that with decent housing for those people.
I have no doubt that when the hon. Member for Perry Barr replies, in his genuine manner, he will continue down the road that he has taken during recent months and be sensible and pragmatic about housing policy. Although he is making a genuine and brave attempt to update Labour philosophy, there is still the problem of the local authorities through which he would have to administer housing policy. The prodigal son may well come and say, "Yes, my party has sinned and wishes to change its ideas about housing." However, those amongst whom he squandered his inheritance in the past are still there. The difficulty is that the Labour party's ideological commitment to one type of housing is detrimental to the housing scene.
As an example, one of the cries of Liverpool council is that it has been defending homes and jobs. However, Liverpool now has 10,000 fewer council tenancies than it had when the Liberal party was in control. The hon. Member for Perry Barr should take note of that statistic.
We should ensure that housing resources come from different sources, and that we deal with the problem sensitively and efficiently. The housing units that are available are more important than the ideological background from which they come. This is a crucial and serious problem that needs all our pragmatic resources to cope with it.
6.23 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I suspect that those of us who have the honour to represent inner or outer cities find that housing is the major problem that we come across. In our correspondence and at our surgeries, the vast preponderance of worries and problems arise in that area.
Homelessness is on the increase. Certainly in my borough of Croydon, of which you have such intimate knowledge, Mr. Speaker, homelessness has been on the increase in recent years. However, there are different sorts of homelessness. It ranges from those who literally have to sleep on the streets, to those who have no home in the sense that they sleep in short-term hostels, and to those who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I share the sentiments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed when he said that social changes have led to increased pressure on housing, and especially to homelessness.

207
I should like to talk, first. about bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In so doing, I shall try not to make any party political points, because the problem crosses London and political parties of differing complexions. However, the common factors are squalor, misery and depression, wherever one might be.
About three years ago, I went to see a family who were living in a bed-and-breakfast hotel in Croydon. Four people lived in one room, which was about 10 feet square. There was a husband, his wife and their two daughters who were aged about nine and five. They had been there for months. The room was not only their bedroom, but their living room, playing room and eating room. It was their entire abode.
The circumstances that led to their being in that accommodation are not important. The fact is that they were there, and had been there for some time, and their life there was miserable. The father told me that because of their situation the marriage was under strain, the children were not performing well at school and there were possible signs of delinquency. It was difficult to be surprised at what he said. The rent for the room was £105 a week, yet the DHSS was paying about £157 a week. The landlord was making an exorbitant profit, and somebody was not doing very well out of it.
I hope that Opposition Members do not think that I am making a party political point. All I am saying is that here in London there are problems, which I recognise as severe, but they are not limited to that hotel. I have seen many others like it, and people who have to live in the knowledge that the next day will be just as grim as the day that they have just gone through.
I wondered how on earth decent standards could be enforced upon such hoteliers. I took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the then Minister for Social Security, and asked whether, apart from paying out the money, the DHSS could enforce standards of accommodation. I think that the answer was no, because at that time those matters were the responsibility of the local housing authority.
I went to the local housing authority in Croydon. Incidentally, I should add that Croydon currently does not use bed-and-breakfast accommodation, much to its credit. The housing officer told me that the position was complicated because all the legislation appeared to give the housing authority powers, rather than duties. He could not quite understand—I paraphrase what the officer told me —the complexities of the legislation. In practice, it was almost impossible for a local authority to insist on minimum standards. Later it was confirmed to me that that was the case. There is no absolute duty on anybody to enforce minimum standards.
Ever since then I have tried to campaign, not only that bed-and-breakfast accommodation should disappear, but that there should be minimum standards that can be enforced by somebody against the providers of that bad accommodation, the profiteering landlords.
I should like to move away from the issue of bed-and breakfast accommodation and to talk a little about other issues in Croydon, where great contributions to housing are made. We should not forget the contributions of the voluntary sector, the local authorities and, indeed, the Government. I am referring to those who live in short-term hostels, and in general they are young, single people.
In Croydon, the Association for the Young Single Homeless is supported by a variety of means. Urban aid
208
was a great help and something for which many people have been grateful. There is also the Young Men's Christian Association and the Croydon Housing Aid Society. Many of these voluntary set-ups provide good, short-term, individual, clean hostel rooms for people who do not have a permanent home of their own. Some thoroughly good people work in that area; and they all deserve the thanks of us all.
Finally, I come to those on the streets, and it is difficult to know exactly how many there are. Nightwatch, a group in Croydon run by John Taylor, offers advice to people who live on the streets. It does a soup run, taking soup at night to people who do not have a bed to go to. One night during the worst of the weather I had fixed the date before the weather changed—I went out with him and a local clergyman, Francis Pole, to see who was sleeping rough. Funnily enough, there were not many; perhaps only 15 to 20. They were in a different category from those about whom I have been speaking and can best be described—I do not mean this unkindly—as tramps and down-and-outs. I hope to goodness that something can be done for them — the local authority in Croydon is looking into this — and that their numbers do riot increase.
I shall end by shifting my ground slightly. Many of us in London feel that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1980 have not helped. The requirement to give special priority to those considered to be vulnerable, for example, can cause unfairness. I sometimes deal with cases, for example, of a girl with a child who has just been evicted from her parents' three-bedroomed house. Unless I am mistaken, such a girl is meant to get priority treatment, but that is grossly unfair. It reflects the sad trend in society that families often do not take responsibility for their own, as they used to do. Perhaps it is a sign of the times. Too many of us think that the state is the great provider, and not enough think that families have some duties.
I have asked many questions and I appear to have no answers. I certainly have no easy answer to the bed-and breakfast problem, but I wish to goodness that we could open up the private sector. I am acutely aware that people who own houses might let them if they thought that they could get a decent return on them.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman should not spoil a good speech.
Mr. Malin: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that, but I am not spoiling it. Properties are empty and landlords may let them. How can we shift people who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation into private rented accommodation?
Mr. Winnick: What about council houses?
Mr. Malins: I shall stick to this one point. At present a fair rent is established, but that is no good to a landlord who seeks a 10 per cent. return. Is there any way in which empty properties can be let to a family and two rents can be fixed? Perhaps the DHSS could pay the fair rent, which is low, and money that was used to pay for bed-and breakfast accommodation could be transferred from DHSS coffers to pay the private landlord an economic rent. In that way he could make a decent profit.
Private landlords are greatly discouraged from letting because, when the rental goes wrong, regaining possession

209
through the county courts is expensive, slow and a waste of time. I have no answer to the question, but it seems incongruous to have people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on the one hand and many empty properties on the other.
I have raised problems, some of which exist in Croydon, but nothing that I have said should detract from my tremendous admiration for what the Government have done about home ownership. Homelessness and bed-and breakfast accommodation are genuine problems placing great strains on families. All hon. Members on both sides of the House should strain every sinew to ensure that we never need bed-and-breakfast accommodation again.
6.34 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a great pity that the Secretary of State was not present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins). His sincerity was impressive as he spoke of the reality and savagery of homelessness.
At the end of the debate, we shall leave the House and go home to clean beds, where we will be warm. Presumably, we shall not face children who are suffering from being jammed into one room or mothers who are on large doses of tranquillisers, and we shall not be trying desperately to keep a marriage together in intolerable circumstances. But that is what many people face today.
It is absolutely incredible that the Secretary of State can come to the House and say, apparently seriously, that these problems are caused by changes in social conditions, yet feel that he has no involvement in or responsibility for the changes in housing policy and in the policies of local authorities.
When the Government came to office in 1979, my borough, which does not suffer from the extensive difficulties suffered by inner London boroughs, could offer council accommodation or some hope of it to the people on its waiting list. Not more than 1,000 families were on the whole waiting list for every different type of problem. Today we have more families than that on the urgent waiting list alone. Those families can demonstrate immediately social conditions which make it essential for them to be rehoused and know that the problems are so urgent that if they are not solved, their children will produce immediate and plain symptoms of that deprivation. Housing has a direct effect on the health of a family and society as a whole.
There are now no ways in which housing authorities can operate flexibly. They do not have an easy, efficient way of managing their housing stock, and those on their waiting lists suffer considerable anxiety from not knowing how long they will be there. In my area, both families and the single homeless have virtually no hope of being rehoused, despite the tremendous efforts made by some voluntary societies.
Tonight I wish to make one specific point. An effect of social deprivation, especially in housing, is that children run away. Not far from here, in any of the main London stations, groups of voluntary workers seek late at night to help those who have run away from problems at home, whether from parents or institutions. The Children's Society's central London teenage project cannot produce exact figures for the number of children who have run away, but it has asked each chief constable how many
210
runaways come from his area every day. The Children's Society estimated from the data that it gathered that 75,000 children under the age of 17 were real runaways each year.
We cannot say what becomes of those children; no Government statistics label them adequately. The problem of invisible children is even greater. They have run away from various correctional institutions and are labeled "absconders". Many are never registered under any known institutional figure, so we cannot know how many of them come to large cities every year. It is certain that these children face great moral and social problems when they become homeless. They are not receiving support or help from any kind of governmental or local institution. If they are lucky, they are found by representatives of the local voluntary associations.
However, there is no sign that anyone is making an attempt to deal with the problems of those who have voluntarily or involuntarily become homeless. Many turn to shoplifting and theft, and an increasing proportion are turning to child prostitution. When we think of Victorian England and what happened then in terms of housing, we should remember that the Victorian society tolerated child prostitution and was prepared to accept the conditions under which many working-class people had to live.
It was very easy for the Secretary of State to make the kind of speech that he made today, a speech so arrogantly patronising that I am astonished that he felt able to stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver it. It is not enough to remember the homeless simply at the time of a general election. It is certainly not enough to remember the homeless only when we are seeking a way to berate local authorities and trying to shift the responsibility from central Government to locally elected representatives.
We need a housing policy which will urgently house people, but not in any tatty bed-and-breakfast establishment which can be sold from one proprietor to another for indescribable amounts of profit, irrespective of the human lives contained within those sad walls. We need a housing policy which accepts that many people will never be able to buy their own home. Those people have a right to a decent home and some form of stable life within their own four walls. They will not get that unless the Government cease to talk in such arrogant and unacceptable terms and begin to put money, effort and real commitment into rehousing those saddest people of all, those who tonight will not have a home of their own.
6.42 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will forgive me if I do not deal with her remarks. I want to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), the alliance spokesman on housing.
As we sat with bated breath, the hon. Gentleman announced the alliance policy on the right to buy. I was dismayed to hear that the alliance proposes a policy whereby councils could juggle with the right-to-buy discounts. That would cause much concern in cities such as Nottingham. If no discount was stipulated, that could enable a local authority that was hostile to the right to buy, to adopt a policy of ignoring discounts. That would be to the disadvantage of council tenants. I listened to the alliance policy with the greatest dismay.

211
When I considered the Opposition motion tonight, I was reminded of the saying, "People in glass houses should not throw stones." Rarely have I seen a motion more likely to draw attention to the conflicting views of the Labour party than this.
The first part of the motion refers to the objective of providing
"a fit home available to buy or rent."
The motion continues to consider the combination of "private and public provision." I congratulate the Opposition on seeing the light of that combination which has been so successfully deployed in Nottingham. On the approaches to Nottingham by Trent Bridge, there is a site which lay derelict for many years. The site was unused and an eyesore to everyone who entered the city. Thanks to an urban development grant of just under £500,000 from the Government, the site has been transformed. Nicely landscaped modern housing was set out. An old warehouse was converted into flats and the development is a perfect example of the combination between the private and public sectors.
Opposition Members may say that that is exactly what they are advocating. Unfortunately, Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for Nottingham, South has criticised this combination of private and public funds. He announced grandly to the people of Nottingham that private developers should not profit at public expense. It appears that the Labour party in the House is saying one thing and the activists outside are saying another. We are seeing the iron fist of the activists covering the soothing velvet words of the Opposition spokesmen.
Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend also recognise that the comments of the Labour party candidate reveal a yawning gap between himself and Nottingham city council? The council is a keen applicant for and recipient of urban development grant, which can be used to bring about such public sector and private sector co-operation. There are clearly many differences within the Labour party in Nottingham.
Mr. Ottaway: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour candidate's comments reveal the credibility gap between the activists in the constituency and the spokesman in the House.
The latter part of the Opposition motion refers to the "decline in the overall quality of the housing stock and failing to increase it at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of the people of Britain."
There is a large empty site at present in my constituency that used to be occupied by the Basford flats. In the early 1980s, it was realised that there were defects in the Basford flats in common with so many high-rise flats elsewhere in the country. It became obvious that the flats would have to be demolished. I did not criticise the decision to demolish the flats. They were unpleasant to live in and it was hard to find tenants to occupy them.
My objection is that private developers offered to buy the flats from the local authority, lock stock and barrel, for nearly £1 million. They undertook to demolish and rebuild at private expense. However, the Labour members of the local authority refused that offer. The site was demolished at public expense and that cost the ratepayers and taxpayers nearly £1 million. That site is still empty. Opposition Members may have heard me refer to this site before. I referred to it in 1983, but it is still empty today. Although one or two small houses have been built on one
212
corner of the site, there are enormous acres of land in the centre of Nottingham which are empty and unused, purely for dogmatic reasons. The tragedy is that the ratepayers will have to continue paying for the site until the year 2030. When the site is eventually redeveloped at public expense, the ratepayers will have to pay a second time.
Hon. Members who represent midland constituencies may have received in the past two days a brochure from a developer about the development of the Wymeswold airfield. That is an admirable scheme in which an old airfield in Leicestershire is to be developed to provide the kind of village that we are all so keen to see developed in the midlands. The brochure is accompanied by a question and answer sheet that contains a small section entitled, "Why is this development needed?" The answer states:
"Although there had been major efforts by both public and private sectors to renovate the inner areas of Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby, these alone cannot provide for all the land required for new housing or the variety of housing environment necessary to give house purchasers sufficient freedom of choice. As a result there is constant pressure for the release of 'green field sites' in north Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. If this pressure is not satisfied in an environmentally acceptable fashion it could lead to the loss of good agricultural land and areas of higher landscape value to urban sprawl."
Thanks to the opposition of Labour councillors from the city of Nottingham to private development, pressure is being brought for agricultural land to be released. That flies in the face of the words of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Clark) when he spoke during the private notice question before this debate. He criticised the Government for their policy on agricultural land, but developers in the midlands are having problems finding land to develop because of the policy of the Labour council in Nottingham. We have discovered that there are no fewer than 800 acres available for development in Nottingham, but the local authority is blocking that development.
It does not just stop with the unused land at Basford or with the fact that the ratepayers will have to pay twice for the redevelopment of the Basford flats. The city has a modernisation programme of council flats that are about 30 to 40 years old. This is welcomed by everybody, but unfortunately the work is being done painfully slowly because there is no cash to pay for it. The local authority admits that if it had sold these flats to the private sector, there would be the cash for the modernisation programme, which would be completed by now. These inconsistencies in the Labour party's policy continue.
The problem is not just the building of the housing but its quality. Recently around the edge of the city has been built the north-west Nottingham outer loop road. People who live in the countryside suddenly found a main road going through their back gardens. That is a fact of life such things sometimes happen. However, one would have thought that the local authority would provide noise insulation to the houses affected by the road. Where it has an obligation to do so, it has provided insulation, but those of us who have studied the noise insulation regulations will know that local authorities have discretion sometimes as to whether they provide such insulation. Nottingham has refused point blank to exercise that discretion in favour of my constituents who live by the loop road. They are having to live daily with the traffic noise that hitherto was not there. The council is happy to spend money on offices and tarting up the market square. It is happy to give money to the Campaign for Nuclear

213
Disarmament, but when it comes to a genuine issue with which local authorities should be dealing, it will not touch it with a barge pole.
I can give the Labour council a small pat on the back. Many people have spoken about the homeless, a subject about which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) knows a great deal. There are many problems with homelessness, such as family splits and increasing demand, and the city of Nottingham council is active in the bed and breakfast market and is doing a rather good job. I also congratulate it on the night shelter it has developed. This allows the down-and-outs to turn up in the evening and have a bed at a low price—lower than the social security payment.
I referred to planning aspects when I spoke about the Wymeswold development. It is not in the interests of the nation to let the land become a concrete jungle. In my constituency there is a half empty industrial estate located one mile from the motorway. Next to it is an empty site with planning permission for housing. We want to try to provide incentives for people to get up the M1 and use the housing available in Nottingham. One can buy a house in Nottingham for £12,000, so why is it that the entrepreneurs of today will put their factories down the M4 corridor when there are sites in the midlands? I do not know the answer to that—perhaps it is that the golf clubs in Surrey are better than the golf clubs in the midlands.
Mr. Kevin Barron: What about the north-south divide?
Mr. Ottaway: It is not the north-south divide—it is inner poverty against outer poverty. It is an illusion to think that it is the north-south divide. We want to lift the pressure on developed areas and encourage development in the under-developed areas such as Nottingham.
The Labour party's motion encourages the use of market forces. It rather suggests that statutory regulations are succeeding where market forces have failed.
Many a person in Nottingham is trying to find somewhere to live and cannot, simply because there is not enough rented accommodation. We have to repeal the Rent Acts so that we can free the rented sector to let the flow of rented property come on to the market. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction on what he has done with shortholds. He has taken a positive step in the right direction, and I encourage him to go the whole way and repeal the Rent Acts.
6.54 pm
Mrs. Renee Short: It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins). He might have learnt one or two salutary facts about the housing situation had he done so. We did not hear much from the Secretary of State except the usual Tory speech, overlooking the problems and the needs of the large mass of people who look to Government and local authorities to provide decent housing for them. It is now estimated that we have 22 million ageing houses, many of which need to be replaced. To keep pace with deterioration and demographic changes, we need 250,000 new houses a year.
214
In 1979, the last year of the Labour Government, we built more than 250,000 houses. From 1974 to 1979, the average was over 300,000 a year. That is a record that this Government have never been able to equal. Under this Government, the figure has fallen to below 180,000 a year, which shows the shortfall in newbuild. We are not building enough new houses or refurbishing the older houses that could be made habitable and attractive if we spent the necessary money on them. Much of our older housing stock no longer satisfies. It is without modern heating or proper insulation and is neither safe against water penetration nor proof against damp. Those houses need money spent on them to make them habitable.
Many local authority and private houses are just not good enough by today's standards. Local authorities pay out much money to house people in bed and breakfast accommodation in miserable conditions and at high cost, and much of that accommodation is sub-standard. The Government have the gall to blame local authorities for leaving houses empty, when under the present financial arrangements, local authorities do not have the money to repair and modernise their old houses. The Government also insist that local authorities should sell houses to sitting tenants. They promised that money from sales could be used for newbuild and modernisation, but the Government are blocking the use of the proceeds to improve matters. Will the Government allow the release of this money and allow local authorities to carry out urgently needed housing repairs?
Not building enough houses leads to artificially high prices for both old and new property, and badly affects the building industry. Research and development suffer severely, and morale is affected, particularly in the building materials supply industry. Civil engineering construction has also declined, and that, combined with the serious plight of housing has led to a further grievous decline in some parts of materials production. As we all know, if we do not have enough raw materials, we cannot build.
The cement industry is an example. It has suffered not only from the reduction in building activity but from imports of subsidised Greek and Belgian cement, with which we cannot compete affectively. I have raised the matter of imported cement with Ministers over the years, and none of them are willing to take action about it. The Government seem utterly incapable of dealing with these imports or of taking any steps to resolve the problem. Subsidised Greek cement is distributed here to the detriment of our cement industry.
Our industry, alone among all European cement manufacturers, has a progressive attitude to research and development in the construction industry. The Cement and Concrete Association's laboratories, maintained by the industry itself by a levy on every bag of cement sold, have contributed greatly to research in the building industry.
Courses in their college are highly regarded by the construction industry. Many colleagues in the building group from both sides of this House have seen the work at Wexham Springs done by the CACA. The college, I am informed, will be shut down because the restrictions imposed by the Government and because the lack of work in the industry now compel a reduction in these activities. This will affect not only the job situation here, but, eventually, the earning capacity of the industry abroad.

215
The Minister should let us know that he intends to save this CACA college, which has greatly helped the training of engineers and builders.
Mr. John Patten: I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene in her speech. Is she not already aware that in the south of England the work load for the construction and house building industry is at the 1979 level? Secondly, is she not also aware that the cement industry—I and my right hon. Friends have tried to help it through action in the European Community by stopping the import of over-competitive Greek cement, to put it politely—is also suffering as a result of a certain number of structural changes in the construction industry? Builders are using concrete less and other forms of material more. There are structural changes as well as economic changes under way.
Mrs. Short: We have gone through all those economic changes over the years. We are using bricks less. The brick industry was in difficulty because more concrete and steel were being used. Of course there are changes in that area, but the Government have to take that into account in deciding its policy on subsidies and encouraging building. That still does not answer my point — why are we allowing imports of subsidised Greek cement? Surely it is not impossible for the Government to make such decisions. The Government's responsibility for research and development is also under threat. The Building Research Establishment has been subject to a series of Government investigations aimed at reducing state support for their work.
This has led to a continual undermining of the morale of BRE staff, of scientists and engineers, many of whom have very high international reputations in their own fields. The Government are treating the Building Research Establishment with contempt. The BRE now finds it difficult to recruit and very difficult to retain staff. The latest reports, produced at the instigation of the Secretary of State, has a series of recommendations to make the BRE more commercially minded. They recommend the practical elimination of all their work on geotechnics or soil mechanics, the science of foundations, a field in which the BRE enjoys a particularly high reputation. It also happened to be an area where the BRE has developed a very effective consultancy business earning considerable amounts.
The Government also ought to face the fact that the BRE is not only a centre of excellence for research but is primarily of value to the public, not only as a watchdog over the activities of a very highly competitive industry but also as the only unbiased source of advice for all Government Departments that engage in building. The BRE has investigated the Ronan Point collapse, the high alumina cement difficulties and many other problems, and their reports have been accepted by the Government. The BRE must be maintained by public funding and must not be forced to commercialise. I hope the Minister will reply to these points in his winding-up speech.
Finally, there is the much disputed policy introduced by the Government to compel consulting engineers to engage in a Dutch auction in respect of fees. Instead of the long-established practice of fixed fees based on a proportion of the contract cost of the job, we now have a free-for-all where, for example, the PSA, a Government authority, is compelled to accept the cheapest offer irrespective of merit or experience. This will mean, in the industry as a whole,
216
less time being spent on quality of design and more on cutting corners, which means more risk and less innovation.
The consulting engineering profession is a high earner of foreign currency, some £500 million per annum, and is responsible for large contracts abroad. Its effectiveness abroad depends on a viable base at home. The Government are eroding that viable home base and are putting in jeopardy the work that they are able to do abroad. The viability of our building and civil engineering industries is crucial to our country and to our people. I urge the Government to change course on their disastrous policies. I hope that next time the Secretary of State addresses the House on the work of his Department he will make a much more constructive, effective and hopeful speech.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I repeat what I said at the beginning of this debate, that if we could limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 and 9 o'clock, every hon. Member who wishes to take part in the debate will be called.
7.8 pm
Mr. Tom Sackville: Mr. Speaker, I sought to catch your eye in order to express my amazement at the Labour party's refusal to recognise some of the real causes of homelessness. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) failed to mention—and his hon. Friends failed in their attempt to silence my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he tried to spell out—the fact that very real changes have taken place in our society. His failure must cast doubt on the credibility of everything else that he said. The decline in the stable family has been the major cause of housing shortage.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I regret to interrupt the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech. We do not dispute the causes; nobody does. The Secretary of State said that he does not want to overturn the changes in policy which had brought about some of those causes. All we are saying is that the Government should adjust their policy to meet the facts of the situation.
Mr. Sackville: There was a certain amount of barracking and noise from the Opposition Benches when my right hon. Friend attempted to spell out one of the main reasons for the acute housing shortage.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sackville: No, I have just given way, and I will carry on.
In my constituency in Bolton some half of council housing allocations involve single mothers with children. This immediately raises the question of what housing arrangements have been made by the ex-husbands who are the fathers of those children. A certain number of them would be occupying council property, thus doubling at a stroke the number of housing units required. Marital break-up is not the only social change with serious implications for housing. There are too many cases of teenagers abusing the public housing system by leaving home quite unnecessarily and occupying yet more of the council housing units available.
I came across a case in my constituency of two teenage girls who managed to spin a yarn to the housing

217
department of their bad relationship with their father and secured the tenancy of a flat. Their parents were taken completely by surprise and were absolutely furious that the girls were offered a flat in an area which was famous for crime and drug abuse. Surely that sort of behaviour and that sort of scrappy policy by local councils does not help.
I have even heard, as perhaps other hon. Members have, of girls who have apparently become pregnant with the sole purpose of getting a place at the top of the council housing list.
Such behaviour exacerbates the situation further. I am not advocating any formula to get around the problems caused by the decline in morals and family life, but to pretend that these factors are not a major cause of housing shortage is to fail to recognise reality.
The Labour party likes to explain the whole problem in terms of unemployment and lack of resources. Of course I do not pretend that unemployment does not severely exacerbate the problem, nor do I pretend that infinite resources would not help, but we need to consider very carefully how resources, if infinite, would be used by councils. Public funds should not be squandered on councils which persist in maintaining unbelievably inefficient and ineffective direct labour organisations whose repairs may cost twice what an outside contractor would charge for the same job.
That leads me on to the stark choice which faces many young couples, between owner-occupation and getting a mortgage or securing the tenancy of a council property for which the administration and maintenance costs may be frightful, where the smallest repair may take months to get done and, when it is done, it is done so badly that it needs to be done again. The lack of a private rented sector, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, is deplorable. We are probably the only country in western Europe or. indeed, in the West whose politicians have inflicted such a state of affairs on its citizens.
Mr. Winnick: What the hon. Gentleman says about the private rental sector is untrue. Why does he not ask the question of his right hon. Friend? If the rents legislation is so bad, as the Secretary of State has confirmed, why do the Government not repeal it? Should not the people in Greenwich and elsewhere be told that if the Government are re-elected—which they will not be—they would do away with security of tenure for many people in the private sector?
Mr. Sackville: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to put that question to my right hon. Friend. If he listens to the rest of my speech, I shall address some of those points.
We have to ask how we are to start gettng desperately needed investment into the private sector. There are problems with overnight decontrol of rents. It is for that reason that the Institute of Rent Officers has just published a report in which it proposes an interim measure as a new system of control. Surely the problem is that to provide the confidence to motivate institutions to invest long-term in new or renovated private rented accommodation, we need to find a system for which there is a modicum of cross party agreement. What investor will put money into a housing project with the strong possibility staring him in the face that the return on his investment will be halved after the next election?
218
The institute suggests that the present complex rent-fixing formula be replaced by a fixed percentage return on capital value, reviewable at fixed intervals. Surprisingly, this would not increase or decrease by very much the current average rental levels in most areas,. but it would give both landlord and tenant the certainty they need. My hon. Friend the Minister of State should consider that proposal carefully. I believe that it represents a constructive way forward.
7.13 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: If facts and figures are not available to support one's case, one is prejudiced. We have heard it suggested by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) that some of the problems of homelessness and housing shortage are caused by women getting pregnant on purpose in order to be allocated a house. That is the kind of rumour-mongering that we expect from Conservative Members.
The hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment seemed to suggest that the reason for the shortage of decent accommodation to offer to the homeless is that there has been an increase in homelessness as a result of family breakdown. My experience as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, and before that as a social worker, is that many family breakdowns are a direct consequence of homelessness and inadequate housing, as well as other social conditions. To deny that is to ignore the reality that poor people have to suffer because of a shortage of housing.
If rich people — Secretaries of State, Cabinet Ministers and people who own their own businesses—have marital problems, they do not have to queue up at a housing department to try to get an offer of accommodation; nor do they have to go into bed-andbreakfast accommodation. They have enough money to look after themselves, so marital breakdown does not present for them the same social problem.
I am pleased to have confirmed by Conservative Members their desire to get rid of the Rent Acts in order to free the private rental sector from control. I have heard it all before. I came to the House in 1979 and was a member of the Committee that considered what is now the Housing Act 1980. All the arguments were rehearsed by Conservative Members. They said that all one had to do to solve the housing shortage was to create conditions in which it was easier for landlords to get rid of their tenants, to destroy security of tenure and to enable them at the same time to get a better return on the money that they had tied up in property by charging higher rents. They argued that more empty properties would come on to the market and that more would be built for the private rental sector. All that would solve the problem.
The Government set about doing that under the 1980 Act. About 200,000 tenancies were taken out of rent control. Under the fair rents system, more regular reviews were introduced to enable landlords to put up rents. The concept of the short tenancy was introduced. If a developer wants to build a house or a flat for private renting, anyone can rent that property without any rent control of restrictions if it is a short tenancy.
Then there was the Government's three—card trick, their piece de resistance-the shorthold tenancy. Under its provisions, if anyone wants to rent vacant accommodation, he has security of tenure only for the one, two, three or five years for which the agreement runs. The landlord

219
can then get rid of the tenant at the end of that period. According to Tory Members in 1980, that provision would bring a flood of empty property on to the market and would solve the problem, but that did not happen.
Even if rent controls are abolished, if security of tenure is done away with, and if landlords are allowed to charge whatever rent they want, there will still not be an increase in the supply of private rented accommodation. The Housing Act 1957 proved that. As soon as security of tenure went, the owners of private rented accommodation got rid of the tenants. They did not relet the properties, but sold them into owner-occupation to make a capital gain. That always happens when one gets rid of security of tenure. Following the lifting of restrictions, the amount of property available in the private rented sector goes down, not up.
Unless there is a massive shortage of accommodation to rent in the public sector, whether housing association or council property, and unless it is difficult to become an owner-occupier, people in their right mind will not rent from the private landlord who is offering the more expensive alternative without security of tenure. If someone can gain access to subsidised council housing, or to subsidised housing association property, that will be better for him. On the other hand, he could become an owner-occupier and get income tax relief on the interest paid on his mortgage. It is a strange system that operates at the moment. It is based on the assumption that the richer someone is, the more help he needs with his housing. The Government give the rich more income tax relief; the bigger the mortgage, the more income tax relief one gets.
Both public sector housing and owner-occupied housing are subsidised. If a person is sensible, he will want to get into one of those sectors rather than rent from the private landlord who, free from any restrictions, will always offer a dearer alternative to what is offered in the other tenures-unless the private landlord is subsidised as well, and not even the Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested that. I am sure that the spending of Government money on subsidising private landlords is not even being considered by Conservatives for their next manifesto. So whatever restrictions are lifted, unless we scrap the policy of subsidising the other sectors and get rid of mortgage tax relief and any form of subsidy for public renting, there will never be any growth in the private rented sector.
That is why the hon. Member for Bolton, West is totally wrong, because in every other Western country, including the United States, there is no private rented sector to talk of. There is public renting or owner-occupation on a large scale, depending on the nature of the subsidy and how different kinds of tenure are given Government assistance.
Let us put to the electorate at the next election the Government's policy of decontrol, forcing up the rents of private tenants and getting rid of their security of tenure, and on the other hand Labour's proposals which are: the right to buy for the private tenant the Government believe in it for the council tenant and we will introduce it for the private tenant; facilitating the transfer to socially responsible ownership; requirements for the public rented sector to meet the needs of those now dependent upon the private landlord; closing Rent Act loopholes in the form of bogus holiday lets, using licences instead of tenancies, and other fiddles that enable Rachmans to exploit tenants; introducing regulations to stop the exploitation of service charges; repealing shorthold tenancies; giving the right in
220
law to an effective and efficient repair service for tenants of private landlords; and making provision for full information about the name of the landlord and other matters to be shown on the rent book. Many people in my constituency do not even know who their private landlord is and cannot find out. At least a person in a council house knows who to blame if the repairs are not done. We also propose stiffer penalties and more adequate safeguards against harassment and illegal eviction, and a duty on landlords to ensure the safety and welfare of the tenants.
I make no apologies for being on the side of the tenants and not on the side of the landlord who wants to profiteer out of those in housing need in the way that even Conservative Members have described. Between 10 and 12 per cent. of the population of this country still rent from private landlords. They are the worst housed and the most disadvantaged of any sector of the housing market. The free market will not solve any of their problems, but will make them worse.
Turning to what the Government have done in the public rented sector, one sees that housing has been cut hack more drastically than any other area of public spending. Since 1979, the housing programme has been devastated by a 75 per cent. cut in real terms. This has damaged private as well as public sector housing because of the lack of improvement grants, home loans and other things, and brought about some of the worst conditions in our housing stock, public and private, for many years.
Housing has also been subject to annual fluctuations. It is impossible for local authorities to plan ahead, and that is against the background of massive and growing waiting lists. The number of people on local authority waiting lists has risen from just over 1 million in 1979 to 1,350,000 in 1986–87. Over 250,000 households registered on these waiting lists are overcrowded. There are a further 250,000 elderly people, and 14,000 disabled people, requesting more suitable accommodation. A further 420 households are having to share accommodation.
It is said that there is a surplus of housing. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that there was not a shortage of houses. He went on to talk about there being a shortage and its being a problem, and then he mentioned that the people and the jobs were in one place and the houses in another. He talked about houses standing empty in areas where there was a surplus because there was no employment and people had moved out. He produced figures about houses standing empty, which are not houses but flats in tenement blocks which people have moved out of and which councils want to knock down and replace by council houses.
Let me take the example of Sefton, the local authority that covers my constituency of Bootle. Its housing investment allocation for 1987–88 is £5·188 million. It has not built a council house for seven or eight years. That is just about a housing manager's pocket money to deal with the odd environmental improvement. We cannot give improvement grants but there is this wonderful scheme for home insulation introduced by the Government, which has suffered a 60 per cent. cut this year. The local authority has only £64,000 to spend. By the middle of last year it had spent £206,000 on home insulation schemes. The Minister is now threatening to change the scheme, but before he does that it will have spent the £64,000.
Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend contrast that with what has happened in the city of Liverpool, where in three

221
years the authority has built 4,240 houses, improved houses and flats to the tune of 4,541, and taken out of old tenancies—that is, tenements, flats and maisonettes — 4,900 people? Despite all those efforts there are still 18,000 people on the waiting list, of whom more than 9,000 are in the private sector and are in real difficulty. Some of them bought houses on the basis of the Government's policy and then discovered that they were getting pushed out of them because they could not afford to keep up the payments.
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) said that there were 10,000 fewer council houses in Liverpool now under Labour rule than there were when the Liberals were in power. That is true, but those 10,000 were the tenement blocks that people would not live in. Many of them were standing empty and the Labour council has knocked them down and replaced them by decent low-rise housing. That is what we want to do. It is not possible to denigrate the public rented sector by picking on examples of the worst kind of high-rise flats built in the 1960s. There are thousands of decent low-rise council houses all over the country, built over the years in which people like to live. Conservative Members boast that people are buying council houses and say what a wonderful scheme it is, but they then say that no one wants to live in a council house. They cannot have it both ways. We want to build decent low-rise council houses, with gardens for people to live in; houses that families and single people can enjoy.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) poignantly described the conditions in which homeless bed-and-breakfast families live and said that he did not know what the solution was. The solution is to build decent low-rise council houses with gardens and rehouse the homeless families. If the Government made the housing investment programme allocations available to meet the needs, the local authorities would rise to the occasion and build the housing.
It is not public money that is involved. What is necessary is permission for the local authorities to borrow. Why should local authorities not borrow money to build capital assets? The money that they owe on those capital assets is always less than the value of the assets. Rent payments increase with inflation as the years go by. They are in exactly the same position as the owner-occupier borrowing money through a mortgage to buy a house. The Government would rather borrow money through the public sector borrowing requirement to pay the equivalent of the weekly food bills, to pay for bed-and-breakfast accommodation and to pay the unemployed their social security benefits than allow councils to borrow to build council houses.
We had the statement last week by the Minister, not trying to stop local authorities borrowing money to build houses, but trying to stop a local authority acting as a guarantor for a housing association to borrow money to build houses to rent. Eighty-one houses that would have been built on the St. Ambrose site in Netherton in my constituency will not go ahead because of that decision. It was not a loony Left council. Sefton was loony Right until last May, and now it is balanced and very moderate. It was negotiating to build for the first time some houses that it
222
could let and manage which has not happened since 1974 when the Tories took power in the newly created Sefton, but that has now been stopped.
The Park Lane estate is in my constituency. The Government claim that they have no responsibility for empty properties and homelessness. The fact is that 400 dwellings were built for sale by Wimpey on land allocated by the local authority, and 40 of them are now empty, in some cases because the people have been made unemployed and cannot afford the repayments and have had to move out, but also because, although the scheme at first was a good one, with no deposit and a 100 per cent. loan to help people on lower incomes to become owner-occupiers, and although the people moved in, house prices have plummeted in Sefton.
House prices are going down on Merseyside because of unemployment. No one can afford to buy the houses. A house is worth what one can get for it on the open market. If there are no jobs and no one can afford to buy, house prices go down. There were employed owner-occupiers, school teachers, in these houses, who saw the equity in their property going down, and who could rent more cheaply or buy a house more cheaply in some other part of the country. They handed in their keys and said, "Keep it. It is not worth it any more." This is a direct result of Government policies, which have brought about unemployment, causing houses to stand empty and creating homelessness on Merseyside.
The home is the central part of the fabric of our society. That is what the Secretary of State forgets. It is not just bricks and mortar. The home should meet two criteria. It should be a place where individuals and families can be themselves, for better or worse, obtain peace and security and flourish, both mentally and physically. The home should also be an effective base for daily living, providing rest and relaxation; a place where we gain mental and physical strength for participating in our highly pressurised and competitive society. Families nagged by insecurity, overcrowded, so that they live with constant strain and tension, missing any kind of privacy, surrounded by dampness and infestation by such things as cockroaches, which spread disease, living in physical danger because of the unfitness of the property and cheated of the necessary facilities that others take for granted are, in my view, homeless. This is what creates the social conditions, not the other way around.
7.31 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: The Chair has obviously seen the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and me as some form of two-step, since only last week the hon. Member followed me in a debate and tonight I return the compliment. I will come later to his near-pathological hatred of renting, but I have some sympathy for one or two things that he said.
I welcome the debate as the first of what I hope will be several housing and homelessness debates in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, a major United Nations initiative. The relevant motion recognising it has been signed by more than 250 right hon. and hon. Members. I believe that, in signing it, they recognised that the responsibility was not only global but very much concerned with the state of housing and the homeless in this country. Of all the many statistics circulating, simply to note, as the campaign does, that half a million elderly

223
people are currently living in accommodation unfit for human habitation will serve to remind us that in this area at least we have much to do in this country.
Comment has been made about bed and breakfast and, in fairness, there is little if anything to split the parties on this issue. Certainly, I have heard the Minister say how much he would like that sort of accommodation phased out, and I know that Opposition Members too wish to see it go. Although the way in which we do this will create some differences between the parties, it ought not to do so, because each of us can see how at the moment the practice is contributing to much bad housing and helping only a few rich landlords and property owners.
On all these issues, we are talking of extra money— there is no question of that. I hope that my Government recognise that some of the problems will not be resolved without the injection of money in various ways. I include in that the question of private renting. I want to see us take the same imaginative and crusading approach to homelessness as we have taken for some time to unemployment. There is not just one answer but a whole series of them, and we must be prepared to try a whole series, even if one or two prove not to be as effective as we hoped. It is too easy at times to find ourselves arguing either for private ownership or for council renting while forgetting that this creates the very sterility which has bedevilled much of our discussion in recent years.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the short-life use of a number of empty council properties. I hope that he is right: they should be used. We should be very much concerned that a number of other councils, Conservative, Labour or whatever, should use short-life property—that which is bound to be redeveloped in due course. There is a proper form of licensing agreement available and widely in use. There is a good book on it from Shelter which I can recommend and which gives some short-term assistance, particularly for young people. It is not a long-term answer, but we are talking of the better use of all resources including short-term property.
As others have done, I would urge my Government, since they have announced that the "movement requirements", if I may so call them, attached to board and lodging will be abolished next year, to go the whole hog and abolish them this year. They do not help to solve the present problem.
If I had not done so before the debate, I must now recognise that there is still a sustained resistance to private renting among Labour Members. pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who, in a comparatively short period, has shifted Labour Front Bench thinking quite a lot and made it much more realistic —if I do not damn him with faint praise—than it has been for a number of years. But at the heart of it we still have to cope with the attitude which can be exemplified by the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle. I read from the Financial Times today:
"The Labour-led Association of Metropolitan Authorities is threatening to boycott housing associations which compete to buy council housing following a decision by a consortium of five housing associations in Telford, Shropshire, to bid for 9,000 houses being offered for sale by the new town's development corporation."
Nothing better demonstrates the sort of thing that I mean. With the exception of the far Left of the Labour party, most hon. Members on the Opposition Benches accept that one is entitled to make a profit on the selling of goods
224
and services and, as an individual, from one's labour. I cannot see why, provided that we have checks on the quality and calibre of landlords, it should be inherently wrong to make an equal profit on renting.
The consequence of that attitude and of our lunatic voting system, which means that there is still a chance of a Labour Government being elected, is that even if we were able to bring in legislation to encourage an increase in private renting, it might well be rendered largely inoperative, as in the case of shortholds, because the Labour party has made sure that it would not be effective, since landlords would not dream of acquiring property for renting if there were threats of a future Labour Government rescinding the legislation.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Member accept that if private landlords are always making a profit on renting accommodation, they will always offer a dearer alternative? People will only take that alternative if they are forced to do so because they cannot get access to any other kind.
Mr. Squire: I do not accept that, for a number of reasons. I accept that it is not simply a question of passing legislation and that one must examine all financial angles and different forms of tenure and money coming in:, but I do not accept that a private landlord will automatically charge more.
Turning to the alternative which people face at the moment in the council sector, from both points of view—that of the nature of some of the councils themselves and that of the surroundings in which they find themselves—"that report", as it is now becoming known. of the Audit Commission made it clear that the eight authorities in question are spending more within their housing departments than comparable authorities outside, because when it comes to repairs, and the money that is going in to maintain the stock, the figures are frighteningly bad. If I were a tenant and had a choice between living in some of that accommodation or in private rented accommodation, I would by no means be as certain as some Opposition Members seem to be that, invariably, council accommodation would be better.
However, it is more than that. Within the last couple of days we have had reports about no-go areas. Is it in some 70 zones around London that the milkman and the postman are afraid to go? What sort of life is that? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bootle to say that we designed something wrong and are all at fault because we did not get it right last time, but basically it will be all right if we get the design right; he forgot for the moment about the money. But it is not just that, because who is to say that the same mistakes, or different mistakes, will not be made next time round? The environment for the people in those areas is every bit as bad as, and in some cases much worse than, it is for people in private rented housing.
To believe that council housing represents a panacea relative to privately rented housing is to fly in the face of a lot of our experience. I read in the newspapers—and, of course, I believe everything that I read there—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is likely to turn down the Tillingham hall development. That is not far from me. Of course he cannot comment on that now. Despite what appears to be a unanimous clamour—at least, he must think it is unanimous — urging him to reject the development, some of us believe that further development is essential.

225
We do not talk of concreting the entire area from London to the coast, because that would be insane, but we recognise that in the fairly short time since 1976 the green belt has almost doubled in the metropolitan green belt. Those who say that we must preserve the green belt at all costs must recognise that at present we are doing more than preserving it. We have a green belt and green braces and for all I know other green things to go with them. The green belt is not in danger. However, in the home counties and in the south and certainly in my area, it is nearly impossible for many young people, especially young married people, to buy homes. Hon. Members will know that I draw a distinction: in order to be able to buy a home couples are forced to have two separate mortgages, even though they will live together. If they marry, they are hit by the rules.
I encourage and welcome all signs of industry and employment coming to the midlands and the north and I applaud that when it happens. The reality is that demand is in the south-east and it is not sufficient to say that people who wish to be housed must go to the inner-city areas. Many of them will not do that, and even if they did, that would again create massive high-density housing in the inner-city areas, thus giving rise to the slums of tomorrow. We do not want that. We must seek a balance.
I urge the Minister to recognise that, if the market is to be a key force and if it demands that in terms of employment and family links people must live in certain areas, we must go some way towards meeting those demands. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on a number of interesting initiatives that he has taken in recent months. I look forward to many more directed at tackling this, arguably the greatest problem that we face.
7.43 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: It is appropriate that the debate should be taking place at the beginning of International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. It is sad that in this year, far from seeing progress to reduce homelessness and to respond more effectively to the human miseries experienced by the homeless, we will see, at least until the general election, an ever-increasing upward spiral in the number of homeless people and, secondly, more people recorded as homeless than at any time since records began shortly after the end of the second world war.
Thirdly, we will see more single, homeless and childless people — whose needs will not be recorded because official records do not cover most of them—without a home than at any time in recent years. Fourthly, we will see more homeless families in bed-and-breakfast hotels than at any time in our history. The Minister and the Secretary of State should ponder my fifth point, which is that we will also see fewer new homes for rent built in Britain than in any peacetime year this century.
By any criterion, that record of the Government—which is coming home to roost in. of all years, International Year of Shelter for the Homeless — is disgraceful. It is symbolised more than anything by the rise of the bed-and-breakfast hotel. The speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) was interesting and many of us listened to it with a great deal of sympathy and respect. It was interesting to note that the
226
scandal of bed and breakfast is now widely recognised by people of almost all political persuasions. That should be so, because the evidence is overwhelming.
Yesterday I attended the launch of a new report by the West London Homelessness Group. That report identifies the appalling living conditions in the Thorncliffe hotel near Heathrow, where hundreds of families are living in squalid and overcrowded conditions. They are subject to racial and sexual harassment and abuse and their cooking facilities are hopelessly inadequate. The bathrooms are described by residents as dirty, stinking and terrible and the toilets are described as dirtier than those in Piccadilly circus. It costs a lot of money for the privilege of living in that sort of accommodation.
The irony is that this year we will spend more public money than ever before on subsidies to some of the greediest, most evil, most exploitative landlords in Britain. They are literally exploiting the misery of the homeless and doing so — this is the extraordinary comment—by courtesy of Her Majesty's Government, who through the DHSS will be paying the great bulk of the bill. I recognise that that is not the Minister's Department. The DHSS may not be able to pay rates to those local authorities that are owed large sums; my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) appropriately identified that in his speech. However, the DHSS is providing large sums of public money to keep homeless families in squalor.
Surely it ought to occur to the Secretary of State, if he ever gets together with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to discuss these things, that it would be economically more sensible, let alone socially more desirable, to spend some of that money on building houses for homeless people rather than using it to keep them in squalor at public expense.
According to an answer given by the Minister, it costs far more to keep homeless families in bed-and-breakfast hotels than to provide them with brand new houses. According to the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction in an answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the average cost of keeping a homeless family in a bed-and-breakfast hotel is some £30 per household per day. That figure should be engraved on the Secretary of State's heart. Some £30 per household per day works out at £12,000 a year, and the average cost, allowing for all debt charges, management and maintenance, of building or acquiring a new council house in Greater London is between £5,500 and £7,000. It is not just socially disgusting, it is economically lunatic. It is an illustration of the loony Right ideology that is motivating the Government's housing policy.
The Government's hostility to public enterprise is matched only by their hostility to mixed public and private enterprise. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) so ably illustrated earlier in the debate, last week, in a fit of ideological lunacy, the Government stopped councils, housing associations and private sector agencies providing for homeless families new homes to rent that are cheaper and better than bed-and-breakfast hotels. The Government have stopped one further initiative by people who care and are trying to provide decent homes for the homeless, rather than leaving them languishing in bed-and-breakfast hotels. The Government are failing abjectly in the responsibilities, perversely stopping people who are trying desperately to respond to

227
the dreadful housing crisis we face. The numbers of people who are suffering in bed and breakfast are growing alarmingly.
We learned quite a lot from an extraordinarily bizarre and inadequate speech by the Secretary of State about the ideology that is responsible for this misery. We learned, by the terms of the amendment proposed by the Government, of their hypocrisy. The amendment refers to reestablishing a right to rent — a quite extraordinarily brazen claim by a Government who have presided, during their term in office, over the sharpest decline in rented housing opportunities in Britain's history.
In the past seven years, 900.000 homes have become unavailable to rent. Never before has there been such a loss of rented accommodation. It is the Government's responsibility, and it is sheer hypocrisy to talk about reestablishing a right to rent. Only a Secretary of State as insensitive and ignorant as the present one could pretend that that dramatic decline—the 900,000 loss of homes to rent-has not contributed in some way, let alone been a significant contribution, to the rise of homelessness.
The Secretary of State talked highly selectively about some of the social causes of homelessness. He ought to have referred to his own Department's statistics on homelessness, from which he would have learnt about the reasons for homelessness. He would have learnt that disputes with relatives and friends are the largest single cause of homelessness. If he studied the figures and reports that have been written by many eminent academics who have studied the problem, going back to the period when John Greve conducted probably the best survey of homelessness in London some 20 years ago, he would know that often losing a home in a friend's or relative's flat is the last stage in a long cycle of insecure homes or limited opportunities. In addition, the homeless person constantly faces his inability to get and pay for secure and stable housing. The Secretary of State would realise, if he had studied such reports, that the shortage and loss of rented housing was a contributory factor.
Mortgage arrears, which the right hon. Gentleman strangely and curiously forgot to mention among the causes of homelessness, have risen from 4 per cent. when Labour left office to 12 per cent. currently—the largest escalation in mortgage arrears that we have ever seen. The Government are responsible for that. About 20 per cent. of homelessness cases are those of people being evicted from private rented accommodation or losing a service tenancy. That fact might cause the Secretary of State to ponder whether encouraging more insecure lettings on the private rented market might contribute to greater homelessness.
If the Secretary of State started thinking seriously about some of these issues, he would not make, as he did, the extraordinarily bizarre and inaccurate claim that there was no shortage of housing. Only someone who did not consider the geographic and tenure imbalances that exist so chronically in our society could say anything as insensitive as that. We all know that it is of no possible use to someone who is seeking a rented house, and can only afford to rent, to be confronted with houses for sale. The cheapest possible price option in my constituency starts at around £70,000. Ordinary single people and young couples have no hope of buying houses at that price. If there are empty houses for sale in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), they will not help people in London. It is those imbalances, in particular
228
the chronic shortage of rented housing., that lie behind homelessness in Britain. That is something that any sensitive or serious Secretary of State should recognise.
If the Secretary of State thought about this problem more seriously, he would not resort to trotting out the weary old claim about empty properties being the key to the whole problem and saying that, if we can get empty properties back into use, there will be no problem. Empty properties are unacceptable in all tenures. Something must be done about the problem. In the public and council sectors, inefficiency is unjustified and action must be taken to encourage councils to bring empty properties back into housing use. Ideology is also unjustified. The largest number of empty properties in the public sector in my constituency were deliberately left empty by a Tory council which was reserving them for sale and not allowing them to be rented to people in need. We have seen that in other Tory authorities, and I hope that the Secretary of State will condemn that lunancy from the Right.
Mr. Tony Banks: The other point that needs to be drawn out is that, although the Secretary of State mentioned 28,000 empty properties in the public sector, in the private sector in London there are 94,000 empty properties.
Mr. Raynsford: I was about to come to that point, but first I was going to refer to Government Departments. The Secretary of State, who referred to motes and beams, should, when considering the responsibility for empty property, recognise that Government Departments have the worst record — 6·5 . per cent. of empty property in London is owned by Government Departments, compared with about 3·5 per cent. owned by local authorities.
I visited some empty Government-owned properties near Didcot, a Ministry of Defence site. There were empty houses there that have been rotting for years, yet in that area the local authority has 50 families in bed-and-breakfast hotels. Why is the Secretary of State for the Environment not talking to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and getting those homes into use for homeless families in that area?
In the private sector in London there are 93,000 empty properties, some of which have been empty for an extraordinary time. In the borough of Kensington and Chelsea I recently saw properties which had been empty for 20 years. That borough has the highest number of empty private properties of any authority in London. It is matched only, in terms of numbers, by Westminster. Those are two Tory authorities with a shocking record for empty private properties, which they have tolerated for far too long. When will the Secretary of State take action with those authorities to get these empty properties used by homeless people?
The Secretary of State may claim that the key to the problems is a relaxation of the Rent Acts, but if he seriously thought about the issue, he might realise that history is not with him. History shows that the decline in the private rented sector began before rent controls began during the first world war. The private sector was already declining in the early years of the century. He would also realise that in the years after 1957, when a Conservative Government sought to reduce tenants' security, there was the fastest ever decline in private renting. Those inconvenient facts do not tie well with the Secretary of State's ideologies.
Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I am coming to an end. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to respond later.
Those inconvenient facts might interfere with some of the quaint ideas of the Secretary of State. I am sad that he is leaving the Chamber, because I was about to refer to his quaint comment that somehow the private rented sector was a key to ending queuing. Has the Secretary of State no experience of the degrading queues that all too often apply when people are looking for private housing? Does he know of the experience of so many desperate people who scour the newspapers looking for flats to rent? Does he know of the rush to get to the property first, to join the queue, only to find that there are 10 people in the queue? Does he know of the degrading experience of the person who has ready money in his pocket, who is able to jump the queue because he can offer the landlord cash in advance—key money—to get in, even if it means that the family in front of him in the queue will lose the home? Does he know of degrading experiences of queueing that are associated with private rented housing? All his responses show the insensitivity, the ignorance of real experience and the adherence to quaint and ancient Victorian values that characterise the Government.
The Government's record is appalling, and the sooner they are swept away by a Government who will do something about Britain's housing crisis, the better.
7.59 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory: Adequate housing is a vital tenet of modern life, and I welcome this debate. Conservatives have developed policies to cope with rapidly changing situations brought about by greater mobility and the breakdown in the family life. But throughout the debate so far, the Socialists have failed to distinguish between "need" and "want". They cannot distinguish between the two words. Consequently, housing lists are grossly distorted and do not reflect need. In the other states of the European Economic Community, young people are encouraged to stay at home with their parents until they can support themselves, secure their own accommodation or get married.
Mr. George Park: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gregory: I have just started to develop this argument. You will learn a lot if you sit on the Benches and listen.
Mr. Winnick: "You"?
Mr. Gregory: Britain, on the other hand, is isolated from the rest of the EEC in that respect. That system would release more resources for those in genuine need and reduce the burden on the state. In direct contravention of supporting the family, Socialist councils such as York are openly changing their waiting list system artificially to bring in youngsters who would otherwise live at home.
Why do councils not ask for evidence that applicants on a housing list can not obtain accommodation on the open market? In other words, do applicants have the financial ability to obtain a home on the open market, or do they require the state umbrella? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the possibility of asking by circular each local authority to require evidence from anyone going on to a housing list that a minimum of two financial institutions, such as building societies, have
230
turned down his request for appropriate loans or funds. In other words, it must be shown that the applicant's resources are inadequate. Applicants can then go to the local authority and say that they are in need of the state umbrella.
Futhermore, waiting lists should be examined by independent consultants to find out how many applicants are still seeking state accommodation and are in genuine need. Circumstances change, yet names remain on the list to justify over-staffing by Left-wing councils and to give distorted figures to the Government.
Labour never sheds its deeply rooted opposition to the spread of private property, especially through home ownership. The Conservative commitment to the right to buy—strangely missing from Opposition speeches—and to the continuation of mortgage tax relief is absolutely clear. Those two pillars of our housing policy have played a crucial part in the massive extension of home ownership since 1979. Credit should go to the Government for the fact that more than 2·5 million more families have become owner-occupiers under this Administration. That means that 55 per cent. of people in Great Britain were in owner-occupation when Labour ended its disastrous period of office, but now 64 per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers. This is a popular policy which will succeed even more as that proportion increases. After all, fewer people are throwing money away on rent. They are making an investment that will increase in value with time and prevent families from being dependent on the state.
Labour has slightly shifted its ground, aware of the vast popularity of this policy. It has moved from its 1979 and 1983 positions, and now Labour Members are having to condition themselves in local elections to fudging—it they have well and truly got a fudge—by returning the right to buy to the councils. In reality, as I have challenged in York and elsewhere, when there is a Socialist council, it means that big brother always knows best and will snatch back property when it comes on to the open market and will stop the right to buy. I hope that the Opposition, when they get the chance later in the debate, will come clean and assert that that is the reality.
The Leader of the Opposition remains wedded to a Socialist past. Addressing the national housing and town planning conference in Bournemouth last October, he sneered at ownership and the
"freedom and dignity it brings".
He continued:
"That sort of fundamentalism which treats possession of private property not as a desirable economic and personal asset but as a condition of liberty is a form of primitive religion."
The 64 per cent. of the population who own their properties are totally out of line with the Leader of the Opposition. That number will increase.
Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gregory: You will have your opportunity later.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member must not keep bringing me into these matters.
Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that he should not address the Chair as he did.
Mr. Gregory: Those millions who have exercised their right to buy profoundly disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. Despite Labour's fudge at its 1985 conference to give tenants the option to sell, more than half of Labour's new prospective parliamentary candidates oppose the right to buy.
In September 1984, the Liberal assembly came down with a policy on similar lines to Labour's with its intention to remove the right to buy. The big brother of Socialism will deprive ordinary tenants of a basic right and even claims the first option in any sale. That is clearly state theft.
How far are local authorities helping to explain home ownership so as to release resources to those in greatest need? Two ways can be explored. The first is an annual advice to each tenant, setting out the relative costs of purchasing against the costs of continuing to rent. That should not be difficult, with the computer skills in local authorities. Few tenants realise how cost-effective it is to purchase. But when challenged to undertake this — I challenged York city council—n its peculiar document, which is entitled "In Touch" but which is out of touch, Labour tried to put the relative figures so that council tenants would know both. The council could not even get its facts right, which is hardly surprising in view of the Labour leadership there. The council deliberately took not average figures—the figures that anyone would expect from a reputable authority — but figures from a particular district in York. The council took a two bedroom property in Chapelfields district, a noted Labour area, where the average rent was £12·69 a week. But that was not the average rent of York city council, and the council knew it. If it could meet the challenge, the average rent was £12·27. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity of accepting the invitation to compare the cost of renting with purchasing over a 20-year period. I hope that those in the small group who are still renting their accommodation will again look at the figures.
The second way in which home ownership can be explained is by proper marketing. A great many local councils are not giving local estate agents or in shops in the local premises information to sell to tenants under the right to buy.
Empty council accommodation is a scandal. We have heard this evening of some 113,000 council dwellings that stood empty in April last year. That is 2·5 per cent. of the total English council stock. York is not one of the worst offenders. It has 71 empty properties, but 20 of them have been vacant for more than a year. That Socialist council has even had property void since October 1982—more than four years. Hon. Members should consider how that accommodation could have provided a real umbrella for the homeless.
Indeed, I have received inquiries from and been visited at my surgeries by potential tenants who would like to take over the oldest property they can find and redecorate and refurbish it. In return, the local council would have the benefit of the rent. But still tonight, as we hold this debate on the homeless in society, that property is void. The Audit Commission has rightly drawn attention to the number of voids. I wish that more local authorities would adopt the Commission's recommendations for good management practicn e as set out in its two publications: "Managing the Crisis in Council Housing" and "Improving Council House Maintenance."
232
Priority should be given to those groups in special need, such as the homeless and the disabled. I applaud the Government's increased resources for housing capital investment which is some £390 million over that planned for 1986–87. The assistance directed through the Housing Corporation—
Mr. Park: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I thought, Sir, that you had appealed to hon. Members to confine themselves to 10-minute speeches.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker made such an appeal but, of course, that is not a point of order. Hon. Members must make a judgment about the length of their speeches.
Mr. Gregory: Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The more interruptions that occur the more the time available for the debate will be reduced.
The assistance directed through the Housing Corporation through about 81 projects for new fair rent and shared ownership, as well as the corporation's new temporary accommodation policy, will be of real benefit. Furthermore, urban programme grants can be used for innovative house projects, including the provision of hostels.
Councils must explore the full range of options open to them to maximise their housing resources and to introduce private sector capital. In particular, councils might well look further into the possibility of meeting the needs of some of their single and elderly waiting-list applicants by encouraging the private development of smaller, lowercost homes, although of course not all applicants can be helped in this way.
Local authorities might also examine houses in exchange for land schemes, which have been successful in the past, and building under licence. It should be remembered that any capital receipts achieved through building for sale or under licence can be reinvested in full. Furthermore, since the enactment of the Building Societies Act 1986, these financial institutions are permitted to build. That was their original role and it should help innercity renewal.
The Housing Corporation's programme for 1987–88 is of interest with regard to mixed private and public finance schemes. In the first instance, it is targeting about £20 million of public resources towards helping homeless families in bed-and-breakfast: accommodation arid to assist job movers. In that regard, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will hold discussions with the appropriate Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security to remove the difficulties that landlords have in opening accommodation to those who are in bed and breakfast accommodation.
Last Saturday at my surgery I received a deputation. not for the first time, from landlords and landladies who provide that necessary service. Yet the problem that they face is that their tenants, who are on supplementary benefit and need board-and-lodging accommodation move before the landlords have had a chance to receive payment. Clearly, if we are to continue to open up rented accommodation for those purposes, two Giro payments need to be sent, one to the applicant and the amount for the board and lodging to the landlord. If we do not act on that in an administrative capacity soon, the amount of available accommodation will clearly dwindle.

233
I mentioned the Housing Corporation's programme. I understand that an allocation will be available in the north-eastern region for "challenge funding" for which the corporation will be inviting housing associations to compete in proposing mixed finance schemes that meet urgent housing needs.
For those without their own home, the problems that arise through inefficient work under home improvement grants sadly occur too frequently. I well recall the announcement made last November by the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction about our expansion of repair and improvement agency services which meets half the costs of a new £6 million scheme. Care and Repair Ltd. and the National Home Improvements Council are free to decide which schemes should be established.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take into consideration the fact that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been sitting throughout the debate. You made an appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like the other occupant of the Chair, for hon. Members to try as far as possible to limit their speeches to 10 minutes. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman is trying to take up half an hour and to deprive other hon. Members of the opportunity of taking part in this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: So long as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) does not stray out of order, I have no power to curtail the length of his speech. However, I hope that he will have regard to the appeal that has now been made twice from the Chair—by Mr. Speaker and myself—to be brief and to give other hon. Members who have sat here for a long time the opportunity to take part in the debate.
Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also mindful of the fact that the last Labour Member who so spoke took up considerably longer than I have already done, as did the previous Labour Member.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make such an allegation, which is not accurate. I hope that he will bring his speech to a speedy conclusion.
Mr. Gregory: Care and Repair Ltd. and the National Home Improvements Council are free to decide where schemes should be established. I hope that more councils will attract these organisations. I look forward to a countrywide network of centres being established this year which will offer practical advice and help. We need councils to monitor builders and check their warranties so that taxpayers' money is spent efficiently. Clearly, if taxpayers' money is being put into home improvement grants, it is important that, wherever possible, effective warranties are investigated by local councils and that there should be a list of approved builders for such grants.
Let me address the question of the rental sector. The Government plan to match their right to buy with a right to rent. We have given an enormous boost to owner-occupation, but there is a minority that cannot afford that. They compete for a dwindling supply of private rented housing or go on long council waiting lists. Therefore, we seek to bring responsible landlords into the market by keeping security of tenure for tenants but moving to
234
market rates. That can be achieved partly by creating a political climate in which building societies and housing associations are encouraged to build for rent. However, it is important to discuss this in the context of the DHSS on the bed and breakfast side and renting and letting of homes must be made respectable and not confined to councils with their elaborate bureaucracy. If that is secured, the Conservatives will be on the right road to obtaining the best housed nation in the Western world.
8.18 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: If time permitted I would deal with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) because he made many points that should be dealt with and attacked. However, I shall refer to just two of his points because, we should make it clear that his reference to the Labour party policy as being opposed to home ownership is simply not true. The Labour party's record for encouraging and developing home ownership over many years has been excellent, and our position on that remains the same and will continue to be so in the years ahead.
The hon. Member for York spoke about the limitations and restraint that he would put on people who were applying to go on council house waiting lists. Some of his suggestions were unbelievable and deplorable. I hope that when the Minister replies he will make it clear that even the Conservative party would not wish to move in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Today's debate is on homelessness and the Government's record on housing. The subject of the debate is important and is one of the major issues facing the country at the present time. Everyone has a right to a decent home, whether that be rented or purchased. They should be able to keep their homes dry, warm and clean. That is a basic entitlement for every person living in Britain. The Government's record on that is deplorable and they will stand indicted and found guilty on housing alone when the election comes.
The Minister should convey to the Chancellor when he is considering his Budget the fact that if there is to be a reduction in the standard rate of tax, a large number of people, whether unemployed or whatever, will receive no benefit, and that if the standard rate is reduced by 2p in the pound, the majority of ordinary working people will receive only a few coppers a week in their pocket while it will benefit the wealthy considerably. That money, the equivalent of just under £3 billion, should be used to deal with the problems facing us in Britain. It is obscene and wrong that a person who has a £30,000 mortgage and is paying tax at the standard rate should be paying a higher mortgage monthly repayment than a person who manages to benefit from an income tax rebate at a higher rate because his income is higher. That is nonsense. Mortgage tax relief should be limited to basic rate taxation.
I believe to some extent that the Government, through the DHSS, are forcing people into multi-occupied properties and bed and breakfast accommodation. That is not the best type of accommodation or in many cases the most desirable. However, I know from people in my council area that even if the council offers them council accommodation, they are unable to obtain single payments for such basic items as a bed or gas cooker if they are single. Therefore, they are forced to remain in that sort of accommodation. However, it would be cheaper and provide them with a far more decent home if the single

235
payment was to be given. The Minister and the Department of the Environment need to speak to the Department of Health and Social Security to persuade it to move in that direction.
On Friday we shall debate a Bill on multi-occupied properties. That will provide an opportunity to debate in greater detail the problems that arise in some such properties. I say "some", because some are well run but many raise serious questions. In my constituency in the Calder ward such accommodation causes considerable concern to the councillors, and to the Top 0' Town residents association. It is also a matter of concern for the Daneshouse ward councillors and the Daneshouse residents action group.
The major problem of housing in Burnley is slightly different from that in many other areas. One thing that 1 have learnt since I have been a Member of Parliament is that we need a much more flexible approach to housing throughout the country. We have a surplus of housing stock of about 6 per cent. in the public and private sectors, and that arises because of the decline of the manufacturing industries and because of the many people who have left the area. Some 5,000 people have moved away from Burnley in the past five years. That is a serious problem. It creates problems different from those that exist in other areas. If a person owns a house in the private sector and is fortunate enough to be able to receive a grant to improve it, the value of the house hardly increases because values are deflated as a result of the surplus stock within the area.
When the council considered this year's housing allocation it issued a statement. That statement was made by the chairman of the housing committee, Councillor Bradshaw, and it was unanimously agreed by members of all parties on the council's housing and community services committee. The members of that committee expressed their serious concern at the fact that the council's allocation represented only 32 per cent. of the amount that the council sought. They believe that they should pursue the issue in every possible way. The bid submitted was for £10,742,000. The council received an allocation of £3,431,000, which included £47,000 for loft insulation. When one realises the problems we have within the area, one can see that those allocations are deplorable.
Burnley has a housing stock of some 37,842 houses and within that, 1,344 are classified as unfit, 1,379 are classified as fit but lacking basic amenities, and 9,286 are classified as non-substandard dwellings but in need of renovation and much money being spent on them. The council has tried to meet the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, either in London or in Burnley. He has not been able to meet the council's request to date. We believe that the problems are serious.
The council is looking, in the first instance, to the private sector where one would have thought that this Government would at least have been a little more willing to meet the council and try to deal with the problems. We realise that Ministers are busy people, but we hope that he will continue to consider the problem.
The point that I have made on many occasions is that one has only to have one house in a long terrace become derelict or go into decay—many of our terraces run the full length of the street — and that can spread and ultimately one will be looking not at improvement but at demolition, not just of one house but a whole block. Many
236
of the stone houses built towards the end of the last century and the early part of this century are basically good houses and are well worth saving and improving.
The borough council would love to be able to attract people into the area to take up the surplus property but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) so rightly said, there is the problem as to what we would give people for jobs if they came to the town.
Those are the problems facing us. There is much more that one could say, but I believe that the housing problem in Britain under the present Government continues to become more critical. They are not taking the necessary action and when the general election comes the people of this country will show what they think of the present Government's policies on housing.
8.28 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, he would not expect me to agree with all his remarks, particularly his last few words.
I shall start by putting the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) out of his misery I do own a few properties, a very few properties. The second initial of my name is "R", but it does not stand for Rachman. Just because some people treat their tenanted property appallingly, it does not mean that everybody does.
I intend to be fairly brief. It is not my intention to give way because I know that many Opposition Members want to speak. If there is a general consensus that I should give way on a point, I shall give way but otherwise I shall plough straight on.
There is a great, and I hope growing, amount of common ground on the subject of housing and there is certainly a great deal of common concern. In the past few years, one of the successes has been the large increase in the number of people who are able to own their own houses. I do not believe that that is a Conservative or Socialist thing; people who vote Labour enjoy owning their properties just as much as those who vote Conservative. There is a great deal of satisfaction, pleasure and creativity in which people can indulge if they own their properties.
I do not wish to discuss the reasons for home ownership or the financial aspects involved, but, generally, it is considered by many hon. Members to be a good thing that people should own their properties. It is also good because local authority housing, in most areas, costs the community money. If people own their properties, it does not cost the community to the same extent.
Despite the increase in home ownership, there is a need for rented accommodation. It is a large and significant demand. Although it may be declining slowly, it will always exist. There will be a demand for rented accommodation from elderly people who do not want the responsibilities or problems of home ownership. They did not have those problems when they were younger and they certainly do not want them now.
There will also be a demand for rented accommodation for people moving out of institutions into care in the community. I am aware that in parts of Northampton— not the part that I represent—there are people who have been moved out of institutions into care in the community. There is a great deal of concern that those people are being exploited. I am not sure whether that is so. There is

237
concern that properties for such people should be properly regulated. Those who regulate are also concerned that they do not have the power to regulate on small properties. However, they are aware that if they were over-zealous in their regulation, the availability of property might clam up. Therefore, we would be in a worse situation.
It is sad that we have not got this area of rented accommodation right. It is vital to provide adequate accommodation in this area and we must get it right.
As my right hon. Friend explained, there is a demand for rented accommodation from broken families. There is also a demand for rented accommodation on the grounds of mobility. Some people like to live, work and stay with the family in the area in which they were born rather than move around the country. Other people, because they are adventurous and want a particular job or wish to move, need such rented accommodation. At the moment, a scheme is operating among councils for people who wish to exchange from one area to another. At present, that scheme is not very good and we need a more positive approach to this problem.
We need rented accommodation for those people who do not want to buy property. Not everybody wants to be a property owner and have the responsibilities that go with it. Thus there will always be a demand for rented accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said that demand and need are not the same. I know that many of my constituents take the view that there are those who get married when they are young and feel that they are immediately entitled to a house. However, when my constituents were younger they knew they needed a house but thought, "We will not get married until we get a house." Also, some young girls believe that if they become pregnant the council will take them off the dole queue and provide them with a property. I am not absolutely sure that their needs — that is how they describe them — should be met overnight. That is a grey area. I do not believe that we can fulfil everyone's requirements as soon as they make them known. Some priorities do not rank as high as others.
How will we satisfy the needs? I am not sure that there is common ground about this, but I feel that one of the greatest environmental disasters that has happened in this country since the war has been the massive expansion of council accommodation—the tower blocks and some of the disastrous estates that were built about 20 years ago. It is generally becoming recognised that this was a mistake. We destroyed homes and we built slums. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke about the days when we built a larger number of houses, but we destroyed homes. A measure of the success of a housing policy is not necessarily the number of houses that are built or the amount of money that is spent but the number of decent houses available for people to live in. We should move in that direction.
There has been much criticism — I know that the Labour party has been strongly critical and it may well have good reason — of the private rented sector. The Labour party will be aware that in other European countries, in Germany and France, there is a large, strong, powerful and well-regulated private rented sector. People get a lot of satisfaction from renting that accommodation. The quality of property in the private rented sector in
238
France and Germany is no worse than the quality of property in some of the inner urban areas of Britain. The rented sector in Europe is a success story, and we should move in that direction.
How will we satisfy the demand? One of the problems has been that, in the rented sector, there has been a virtual monopoly. I think that most people would agree that, in some sensitive way, we should try to tackle that monopoly. There will always be a great deal of local authority housing. Some local authorities are good at managing their housing, but some local authorities, as Opposition Members know only too well, are not good at maintaining properties and looking after their tenants. It is the tenants who suffer and the ratepayers who have to pick up the bills because of the councils' inefficiency.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is being very moderate!
Mr. Marlow: I believe that the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to the debate, so I will leave him in peace.
One of the means of satisfying demand has been housing associations. They have done some very good work, but they do not solve all the problems and they are not totally virtuous. Some housing associations have a tendency to a degree of extravagence, and the fees that are raised by some people are quite high. Not far from here, a church was converted into 18 units with an average of about one and a quarter bedrooms in each unit. The conversion cost was £70,000 per unit. That is a lot of money, especially when one considers it was two years ago.
How will we encourage the private rented sector? At present, there is a haemorrhage in the private rented sector. The reason is obvious. If one owns a house with a tenant in it, and if the tenant moves out, that house has a freehold value. If another tenant is put into the house, the value of it immediately falls. I do not know how we will solve this problem, but solve it we must. The returns on maintaining a house in the rented sector must be equal to the returns on selling that house. That will ensure the maintenance of a large part of the rented sector.
Many councils face the problem of empty properties. We want more efficient councils and we want those with problems to sort them out. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Copeland said that he is trying to provide advice and assistance to those local authorities that are presently facing problems. There are also a large number of vacant properties in the private sector. We know why they are vacant. If they are vacant, such properties have a value. If there is a tenant in that property who may never get out, the value is automatically reduced. That is a problem that we must solve. We need rented accommodation to be available. In the interests of the people we all represent, we must get our heads together over this subject and not keep fighting about it.
There is one point I wish to make of a different nature. It concerns the so-called north-south debate and the cost of property in the south-east. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) said that that was a great problem for some of his constituents who wished to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. It is true that in London the cost of property is extortionate. Perhaps we need to develop the system of shared ownership to enable such people to get on the first rung of the ladder. Families live in London and when children grow up they need accommodation.

239
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have spoken about changing the planning regulations. There is a feeling that there will be a move into the green belt. I believe that that fear is mistaken. However, I do not believe that we should encourage a large-scale expansion of housing in the south-east of England. The cost of housing is high in the south-east, the cost of labour is high, but the availability of such labour is low. In other parts of the country with severe levels of unemployment, housing and labour exist and it would be far better to move the jobs to where the people are rather than to move the people to where the jobs are.
Mr. Tony Banks: How would the hon. Gentleman do it?
Mr. Marlow: If we build houses and factories in the south-east of England and decamp people from the rest of the country, we will certainly not be able to do it. However, if we restrict and restrain, to a certain extent, the development of housing, plants and factories in the southeast as the economy expands—it has been expanding over the past five years—people who want labour and want to set up more facilities will have to move where the housing can be bought and where labour exists. In that way the recession will be removed from the north and north-west of England.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
Mr. Marlow: I am always tempted to give way to my hon. Friend because he makes the best interventions in the House but I said to Opposition Members—all of whom are keen to take part in the debate—that I would make a short speech. I have made that speech. All that I am trying to do is to implore, at the end of my speech, that it is in the interests of all our people who are quite entitled to their totally different views that we get our heads together a bit more than we have done in the past.
8.40 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The contribution of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was uncharacteristically measured in tone. One could almost describe it as the new moderate Marlow. If the hon. Gentleman does not watch it, he may be in difficulties with some of his more Right-wing colleagues.
The debate reflects the acute housing crisis and the growing homelessness. That is reflected in the contributions made by Labour Members. We had a disappointing and dreary speech from the Secretary of State which in no way recognised the acute housing problem and the crisis that exists in the country. Leaving aside the compliment that I have just paid to the hon. Member for Northampton, North, the only speech from a Conservative Member which understood and appreciated some of the problems that my hon. Friends and I are trying to explain was that made by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins), 80 per cent. of which I tended to agree with.
Much of the problem that we face arises from the Government's determination on taking office nearly eight years ago drastically to cut public spending on council housing. Between 1979 and the publication of the latest figures there has been a 65 per cent. reduction in public housing expenditure. That explains the present housing
240
crisis, the long waiting lists, the bed-and-breakfast scandals and the position of so many people about whom my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke who tonight will not have a home to go to.
That is the situation that we face and to which, unfortunately, the Government seem so callously indifferent. We now have the lowest number of council house starts in peacetime. It is expected that the number of new council dwellings started during the current year will be fewer than 30,000.
I agree that there is a consensus of a kind between lion. Members on both sides of the House that a relatively large number of people still require rented accommodation. Perhaps my hon. Friends and I would put that figure somewhat higher than would the Government, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out, the rented sector, and certainly the public rented sector, has been drastically reduced. Many people who are not especially dogmatic on the issue of whether council dwellings should be sold, understandably feel that if the policy is to sell off existing stock, at least we should make sure that that stock is replaced. Of course, that has been far from the Government's policy.
The consensus that does exist goes only as far as recognising that there remains a need for rented accommodation. The fundamental divide between the Government and Opposition Members relates to whether the supply of that rented accommodation should come from the public or the private sector. I am convinced that the possibility of any large-scale revival of the privately rented sector is remote, even with deregulation. When Conservative Members say that all was more or less fine in the past and that the present situation has been caused by the Rent Acts, they should recognise that the houses in which so many of our fellow citizens lived — at the beginning of the century 90 per cent. of our people lived in rented accommodation—were little more than hovels. That was why the slum clearance and redevelopment programmes took place so many years later.
I advise the Minister that he should bear in mind that some hon. Members — I am one — served on local authorities in the London area when the Rent Act 1957 was taking effect. Even with the housing problems that existed then we had to give priority to people who were, in most cases, being legally evicted because of that legislation.
The Labour party must warn existing private tenants that if the Government deregulated the private sector, even if such deregulation is limited o new lettings, unscrupulous landlords—there will be plenty—will try to ensure that the sitting tenant who currently enjoys protection is thrown out, by one means or another, because once that accommodation is empty it can be sold or let at an exorbitant rent.
What is so important, and what Ministers will not accept, is that a deregulated rented sector, by which I mean one in which there is no security of tenure and no limit on rents, will not be any good to those many families who desperately need accommodation. In many cases, they will not be in a position to pay such rents and they will not have protection. When the agreement, if there is an agreement, comes to an end after six months, a year, or even two years, what will happen to them? Even if there is a new offer, they may be asked to pay a larger rent which they cannot afford. What good is such a privately rented

241
sector without security of tenure or rent control? That is why I believe that what the Government intend to do will not benefit the many people who are waiting desperately for rented accommodation. I hope that the Labour party will make the position perfectly clear and warn tenants what is likely to happen if the Government are re-elected.
We need a substantial house-building programme. Much has been said about the poor quality of council housing in the past. I do not disagree with that. However, to some extent that is the fault of successive Governments, who forced and squeezed local authorities to build accommodation which, even from the beginning, would obviously be inadequate. I accept that, but that is not an excuse for not allowing local authorities to have the financial means to build accommodation. We must ensure that it is proper and good quality, low-rise accommodation. It is essential that that type of accommodation is provided by local authorities if we are to tackle the housing crisis that faces the country.
The housing investment programme allocation in my local authority of Walsall is only 80 per cent. of the sum that was provided last year. From 1987–88 we will receive £7,709,000, which is totally inadequate for the borough's housing needs. Money has to be spent from that HIP allocation on properties that are structurally defective, such as the Orlit, the Cornish Unit and the Smith properties. About £5 million will be spent over two years on such properties and that will have to come from a narrow and totally inadequate HIP allocation. Is it any wonder that for eight years no council housing has been built in my borough? None at all has been built. Moreover, many properties that should be modernised, and others on which major repairs should be carried out, are not getting that work done on them because the local authority does not have the HIP allocation or the capital receipts to allow it to spend that money. That is why my borough is facing a difficult housing situation.
More than 1,000 people who have a medical recommendation are waiting to be rehoused in Walsall, apart from all the others on the waiting list. That medical recommendation is from the community physician. Very few indeed of those 1,000 people stand any chance of being rehoused in the near future. Many of them are elderly and have been waiting a long time for warden-controlled or OAP accommodation. Indeed, many will die before an offer comes from the local authority.
In my borough there are many families with two children who are living in multi-storey blocks and whose chances of being rehoused are remote. All they want is to live in a house with a garden, but they have to wait year after year because the local authority is not in a position to give them any assistance. That is part of the housing crisis that we face in Walsall.
The Tory Reform Group, of which the Secretary of State for Energy is president and four other Cabinet Ministers are sponsors, has sent a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that, instead of tax cuts in the Budget, money should be spent on essential needs. It mentions, in particular, housing and urban renewal. That reflects the pressure of opinion that much more needs to be done in housing construction and modernisation, and to end the scandal of homelessness and bed-and-breakfast hostels. Unfortunately, that opinion is not reflected by the majority of the Cabinet.
242
I hope that housing will be a major issue during the general election. It was not in 1983, and perhaps we must take some blame for that. We must ensure that housing and the needs of people who are desperately waiting for accommodation or to be rehoused are explained on the hustings. We must explain that for eight years we have had a Government who have been totally indifferent to the plight of people who have as much right as any of us to be adequately housed.
8.50 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: I have listened to the debate for more than four and a half hours, and I shall not keep the House for too long.
The amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and her colleagues states that the House
"commends the Government for taking steps to re-establish the right to rent; recognises that further progress in increasing choice and supply depends on re-creating a market in rented housing and harnessing private sector resources".
The amendment also refers to
"widening the opportunities for home ownership".
I wish to refer to the right to buy in connection with British Coal's sitting tenants. The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction has sent a letter about the situation between British Coal and its tenants. It states:
"British Coal say that tenants have three months to decide whether they are interested in buying and at least three further months to make the purchase after the discounted price is notified to them."
On 3 December 1980, a constituent of mine applied to the Coal Board to buy his house. The machinery was set in motion, the evaluations were carried out and an application was made for a mortgage. Six years later, on 2 December 1986, that tenant was advised that his house had been sold over his head to a property speculator. Over years, not months, that person has been denied the opportunity to buy the property. If contracts had been exchanged, my constituent would have qualified for a grant under the defects order. Therefore, he has lost in every way. He cannot buy the house now because the new owner will not sell to a sitting tenant.
I hope that the Minister will investigate that injustice and put right the evils that have been created. My constituent is not the only one to have suffered. There are other cases where the Coal Board has denied its tenants the opportunity to buy properties.
Mr. John Patten: The hon. Gentleman has described what, on the face of it, seems to be a serious case. If he would give me all the details of that and any other cases, I shall look into them, as I am already doing for others who have passed me these details.
Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate that intervention and will ensure that the Minister receives the information.
On this estate of Coal Board houses there are 62 vacant properties out of a total of 220. They remained vacant some for over five years, so that British Coal could sell them en bloc to a speculator. That is not in the best interests of the tenants.
Shorthold tenancies are now developing. People must take a tenancy for only one year, although the shorthold tenancy agreement allows for five years. I do not know of one shorthold tenancy that has been extended beyond one year. That, too, should be investigated. It is a racket and works to the detriment of tenants and people desperately

243
in need of accommodation because local authorities lack the resources to build new houses. Will the Minister investigate those matters?
In areas such as mine, where industry has been devastated, local authorities need to build properties. We cannot rely entirely on private landlords. I hope that consideration will be given to the position in the north and areas of industrial dereliction.
8.56 pm
Mr. Timothy Wood: I shall intervene briefly, but pursue several points quickly.
The Opposition often argue that the Government have starved local authorities of money, with the result that there are great housing problems. In reality, all too often local authorities have taken pride in holding down rents, when in many instances a greater sum could be generated from rents and from taking advantage of both the income from the receipts of housing sales and the interest received on those receipts to improve and maintain property from the revenue account. The tragedy is that all too often local authorities choose to say, "We shall not cover ordinary routine maintenance from our revenue income. Instead, we shall endeavour to cover it eventually from capital spending." At the end of the day there is insufficient capital to carry out both essential maintenance and the house building that they may desire to pursue.
When I was involved in a local authority, I encountered that problem. The Labour opposition on the council repeatedly said that maintenance expenditure should be a capital item, not a revenue item. That had two effects: first, it deferred the evil hour when the work was paid for, so that the people of the future were paying rather than those of the present who were benefiting from the maintenance; and, secondly, it implied greater costs, which had to be covered at a later date.
The consequences of that for many local authorities are now evident. It is interesting to note that if we consider the statistics on housing maintenance and the outstanding costs for such maintenance, we see that the smaller rural authorities have taken more care per house and have maintained their homes better than some of the large inner-city authorities.
Council housing over the past 20 or 30 years has not been a great success. We have discussed at length this evening the fact that much of the housing produced over the past 20 or 30 years has not provided satisfactory homes, partly because of system building, and partly because of the destruction of communities. One of the major problems in many areas, particularly inner-city areas, is that we have not provided the necessary variety of tenure and landlord. I hope that in future we will endeavour to create a much greater variety of landlord, through housing associations and other imaginative schemes.
I agree with hon. Members who have said tonight that there will be a continuing need for rented accommodation, and I especially agree with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in that respect. It is important that in meeting that need, we ensure that there is a considerable variety of tenure.
I have been involved with two new towns. I believe that one of the disadvantages of those towns was that so much of the accommodation was rented from just one landlord. In recent years housing associations have come to play a major role in providing housing accommodation in those
244
new towns, and that is a boon for tenants. It has provided a much-needed element of choice. I hope that in future we will endeavour to increase the varieties of tenure.
I also believe that there is a need to edge up the rents that are paid. We have introduced what I believe to be a satisfactory and improved system for providing housing benefit to individuals in need. I believe that the case, therefore, for holding down rents is weak.
Mr. Charles Irving: Does my hon. Friend agree that the two most important factors are that at present some 130,000 or 140,000 council houses and flats are deliberately being kept empty by rotten local authorities?
Mr. Freeson: That is stupid.
Mr. Irving: It is true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that many families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, in some cases paying as much as £135 a week? Does my hon. Friend agree that much accommodation is available, but that because of had management by many local authorities, it is not being put to proper use?
Mr. Wood: I agree that there is a good deal of bad management in that respect. With a greater variety of people providing homes, we will avoid some of the problems. I believe that the Government are working their way towards improving matters in that respect.
9.2 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I have sat through the whole of this debate hoping to make the case for the London borough of Newham and to describe the serious homeless problem in that borough. I have now been given two minutes in which to make that case. Frankly, that is beyond me. I cannot possibly do it. However, I will try to do it and I hope that the Minister will respond to my comments.
There are 47,000 unsatisfactory dwellings in Newham in need of substantial repair, the highest number in London. The position with regard to bed and breakfast in Newham is an absolute scandal. In 1983–84 there were 10 families in Newham in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and that cost £40,000. In 1985–86, the figure had risen to 107 families, costing the borough £587,000. Tonight, there are 370 families in bed and breakfast accommodation, costing an estimated £1·5 million. Newham has the fastest growing level of bed and breakfast inhabitation in London. Newham simply cannot deal with such a problem.
The Secretary of State made a speech of stunning complacency. He has no awareness of the housing problems in London or of the problems in Newham. He lives in a good, rich Tory constituency. The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, who is to reply to the debate, is a decent sort. I do riot know what homelessness there is in Abingdon and Oxford, but I suspect that it is nothing like that in the London borough of Newham. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to come to the borough and sit with me on one Saturday morning at my advice surgery. They will begin to see, when all the statistics are shredded away, the real face of homelessness, hopelessness and poverty, not only in

245
Newham but in all the inner-city areas. If only the Tories had that experience, they would not be so callous and complacent in their speeches.
9.5 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: We have had an interesting debate about people and their homes. That is why the Press Gallery has been virtually empty for the whole of the debate. I missed two speeches this evening and I apologise for that. Of those I heard, only that by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squires) referred to this being the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. If the opposition had concentrated on that issue, the Government would have sent the Minister for Overseas Development to answer the debate, because the Department of the Environment has virtually opted out of housing. We drafted our motion with care and precision because we wanted the Ministers responsible for housing to come to answer the debate.
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction has sent a letter to me and some of my hon. Friends, for which we thank him. It is a letter of considerable detail, concerning the sale of British Coal houses. As far as I understand it, there has been only one change in policy—the auctions have been suspended for the time being in certain circumstances. These have been going on for only a few months. Only a year ago I saw the director responsible for the sales policy, and there was no contemplation of the sort of auctions that have been going on in London hotels. People's homes have been bought and sold over their heads, and they have been given new shorthold tenancy agreements, at astronomical rents. I hope that this new policy has caused the Government concern.
One Conservative Member seemed to jest about the reference in the motion to "fit" housing. It is all very well to talk about units of accommodation, as the Secretary of State did, but we are talking about homes fit to live in. However the Minister may argue about the amount of money spent on renewal and improvement, the fact remains that Britain's stock quality is deteriorating. I do not want to abuse the House by flooding it with statistics, so I shall keep them as brief as I can.
There are three categories of fitness measure. There is unfit housing, housing that is fit but lacking a basic amenity such as hot and cold water or an inside toilet—although I fail to see how houses can be fit if they lack such amenities—and housing that is in need of renovation. In 1984 the number of houses in all three categories in England was 3,513,000. In 1985 it was 3,991,000, and in 1986, 4,045,000. That increase shows how the quality of the stock is deteriorating, but the Secretary of State made virtually no mention of this. It naturally follows that if building numbers and demolitions decrease, we need to repair and improve at a faster rate than we were before even to stand still. Instead, these figures show that we are falling even further behind.
The Secretary of State said nothing about the point raised by one or two of my hon. Friends on the position of first-time buyers. There has been reference to the impossibly high prices for first-time buyers in the southeast and the difficulty of youngsters being able to stay in the areas where they were born and raised. The Secretary of State virtually ignored this issue. In 1984 the volume
246
house builders— the nine largest house builders in the country, responsible for 60,000 new homes each year, plus renovations—sold 60 per cent. of their output to first-time buyers, in 1985 they sold 40 per cent., and they told me yesterday that in 1986 the figure is even lower. There are many reasons for this.
Mr. John Patten: I spoke to the same body of people, and they are extremely interesting. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if their facts and figures are correct for the building industry as a whole, in 1985, the last year for which we have available statistics, there was a record number of 570,000 first-time buyers in this country, and the number will be higher in 1986?
Mr. Rooker: This group of the nine largest house builders, by and large were as a matter of policy providing considerable numbers of homes for first-time buyers. They are now concerned that they are able to provide even fewer for that market than before. The problems are many, notwithstanding the north-south house price problem and the issues of land availability and prices. These market-oriented companies say that with 63 per cent. conventional owner-occupation
"we are getting towards the top limit of those who can afford conventional home ownership."
We must have varieties of tenure, which must include a positive policy of housing for rent. Last Thursday the Minister spoke about the right to rent, but he excluded from that those who take up the new partnership rents. They will not even have the right to buy. The right to buy should not exclude the right to rent, and the right to rent should not exclude the right to buy, if we are to give people a variety of choice in their housing tenure — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] For that reason we have gone out of our way to make clear to the Government on several occasions that we fully support the principle of shared ownership—which was invented by a Labour-controlled local authority in Birmingham—and assured tenancies.
We genuinely want the partnership arrangements to work. The Minister must be aware of the consternation that followed his statement last Friday among housing associations and above all among the financial institutions involved in some of those partnership schemes. I realise, as I said at the time, that his statement is for consultation. We will not make a knee-jerk reaction to it. The Opposition refuse to do that, but the Minister must be aware that his midnight deadline is causing problems up and down the land. I ask the Minister, while he is consulting on the issues, to reconsider whether he needed that midnight deadline last Thursday.
The potential Tower Hamlets scheme has been mentioned. I shall not go into detail, but the Minister must be aware of the great concern in the National Federation of Housing Associations and local authorities and other institutions. I ask him generally to reconsider that deadline. The Secretary of State claims, as does the public expenditure White Paper, that there is enough housing to go round overall. This is so only if we count unfit housing as fit, if we ignore second homes, if we ignore people forced to share, if we ignore the need for empty housing for mobility, and if we ignore houses under major repair and reconstruction.
If we do not ignore those, there is no question but that in England and Wales there is a shortfall of more than 1 million homes. Is the Secretary of State saying that we should ignore all those factors? In addition, there are the

247
catastrophic implications of defective and system-built housing. It is estimated that in Birmingham half the 400 tower blocks will have to come down. They are 20 to 25 years old. A potential need for housing exists in all the categories that I have mentioned.
Although I have said that there are regional imbalances in the amount of stock because of depopulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, the shortage of good housing for the households that need them is a direct cause of the increase in homelessness. The Secretary of State gave a list of what he called social factors. He also said, to his credit, that he did not want to reverse the law that had brought about some of those social factors.
I am waiting for the first Conservative Member of Parliament to get up in this House and say that he wants to go back to the divorce laws as they were in the 1960s. None of them will do it. Therefore, it is no good Members complaining about breakdowns in marriages, when people are no longer forced to live together by law. The Government refuse to change their policy so that we have enough houses to take account of marriage breakdowns. Housing policy must not ignore the changes in social conditions that were mentioned by the Secretary of State, because if it does the implication is that the Government want to revert to unsatisfactory laws.
I made it clear in a recent letter to the Minister, to which I do not expect him to reply tonight, that we will not play the numbers game of setting targets. As we all know, the result of that in the past was shortcuts in design and production methods which led to structural and social problems in high-rise and system-built dwellings in Tory and Labour constituencies alike throughout the country. However, not setting a target is no excuse for not adjusting policy to fit the facts. The fact is that not enough homes are being built or renovated. I remind the House again that if it had not been for the catastrophic drop in new house construction since 1979 we would not have had this debate on housing and homelessness.
For every week since 1979 that the Government have been in power, 2,000 fewer new homes have been started than the average under the Labour Government. At the time, many of my hon. Friends and I criticised the levels under our Government, but since 1979, some 100,000 fewer new homes have been started each year. If the Tory Government had only continued with the average building programme of the Labour Government — I am not arguing about the mix—700,000 more new homes would have been built.
Mr. Roger King: Where would the hon. Gentleman build them?
Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that point. The implication is that there is a deliberate restriction. I remind the House that the best year for construction under this Government was 1983, when there were 217,000 new starts. That compared with 264,000 new starts in 1978, the worst year under the Labour Government. So in their best year the Tory Government managed to build 47,000 fewer houses than in the worst year of the Labour Government. I was asked where the houses would be built. I shall come to that towards the end of my speech. We keep hearing from Conservative Members that we should fill every derelict site with housing.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the problem of empty houses. I take second place to nobody in
248
condemning authorities which leave houses empty deliberately because of inefficiency, but I lose my temper at such unreasonable interventions as that made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) just after 9 o'clock. It is almost beyond belief that someone with his knowledge should have made such an intemperate intervention.
There are several reasons why housing is left empty, as we all know. Problems involving major improvements and repairs, transfer policies, tenancy turnover and allocation policy have all been identified by the Institute of Housing in a document published to give advice to local authorities. I repeat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said in moving the motion, that the worst landlord for keeping homes empty is central Government, with a figure of 6·3 per cent. in London, while for local authorities in London the percentage is 3·5.
Landlords may get sick and tired of the matter being raised in the House, but we have to put the other side of the picture. People who leave housing empty needlessly must be condemned. Before the Minister repeats the condemnation, may I point out to him that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors recommends that 2·5 per cent. of houses should be empty at any one time to assist mobility? That does riot figure in the calculations. Last year the Opposition gave the Government an opportunity to do something about it. We proposed that housing which had been empty for six months but which was fit and available for letting should be used by people on the waiting list who would simply write to the local authority and make an arrangement to pay the rent. The Government rejected the amendment: it was far too radical for them. We recognised the problem and tried to draft an amendment to meet the needs of the situation.
I made a list as Conservative MPs spoke of empty properties in the private sector and the public sector in their constituencies, and it does not make very good reading: private properties in Northampton, 2,100; York, 800; Bolton, 2,800; Nottingham, North—and certainly Nottingham as a whole—3,600. These are all very high percentages.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins), who made by far the best speech of any Conservative Members recognised the problem. In Croydon—where, of course, it is your local authority, Mr. Speaker—there are 3,300 empty properties: in the private sector 3·3 per cent., and only 1·4 per cent. in the local authority sector.
Why are they empty? The Minister will probably tell us that it is because of the Rent Acts. If the Government had the guts to get up and say that they were going to abolish the Rent Acts, we would know where we stood. Members of the Tory party say that they want to abolish the Rent Acts, but Ministers cannot quite bring themselves to say that. They know — and it has been said from these Benches—that the fastest fall in private rented housing followed the 1957 Rent Act. It disappeared at a faster rate from the time that Rachman was brought in that it had done before.
Local authorities are, of course, slagged off by Ministers all over the country, and one local authority was particularly slagged off by the Minister who will be winding up the debate tonight when, on Tuesday 20 January, he was interviewed by Nick Ross on "Tuesday Call". He had a go at Southwark, I understand, and made

249
the point that Southwark had refused to accept money to improve empty properties and said that the council preferred either to buy property or to build it itself.
The Urban Renewal Housing Unit circular was sent to Southwark in September 1986. On 23 October the local authority wrote back setting out a scheme and inquiring whether it would be eligible for funding. It set out ideas for the acquired properties. It wrote again on 16 January 1987, three days before it was slagged off on the radio, regarding another of its initiatives to help the homeless. This involved the acquired properties, which again it had owned for some time. It agreed that all the properties should be let and allocated to the homeless. In response to that letter, the Estate Action team invited it to submit an application, which it has done.
Why, then, does the Minister go on the radio and say that this Labour-controlled authority has refused the money? We deserve an answer to that. The Minister obviously had some facts about Southwark of which I am unaware and which he used on 20 January. If that is so, I invite him to refute what I have said.
The obscenity of homelessness will continue if we do not have a change of policy. We have again had Conservatives — I cite in particular the hon. Members for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) and Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway)—calling for the lid to be taken off rents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland raised issues relating to Greenwich. It is not an unimportant area. It has a good mix of housing. As the Minister says, it has a well run authority that collects its rents and rates. In Greenwich this morning I saw properties belonging to Morden college which it is keen to sell. This is a private landlord which apparently did repairs only when the council issued a notice and the courts were involved. The trustees are all former lord mayors and aldermen of the City of London. Not much local content in the management there! The local authority cannot be blamed for that fiasco. The quality of the housing is poor. Now, at the end of the day, the Labour-controlled local authority is desperately trying to put packages together with the private sector, the housing associations and the financial institutions to buy up those properties so that they can be managed and repaired properly and provide good homes for local people.
What is wrong with that? The Minister will say that a private landlord will be lost. To the best of my knowledge, the arguments have nothing to do with the Rent Acts. The landlord has decided to sell. It obviously does not want to be a landlord. It obviously is not a very good landlord, and that is a damned good reason for making sure that it gets out of landlordism.
We have also had mention, in interventions in my own speech, of land. Without going into detail, which would be inappropriate at this time of night anyway, several hon. Members on the Government Benches have repeated in interventions and in speeches the idea that it probably ought to be natural that every square yard of derelict land in the inner city should be built on. We reject that. It is a ridiculous policy. The Minister has coined the term "brown land". We can have all the brown land that we like, but I still think that it would be wrong and grossly unfair to develop intensively all the inner cities.
As I said to the house builders last December, it is as unrealistic to claim that all inner-city derelict sites should
250
have homes on them as it is to say that all newbuild should be green field sites. There must be a balance. We are opposed to urban sprawl, but this does not mean that where there is a proven need some of the green outer area could not be exchanged for green lungs in the inner cities. We should have these in any event, as a green belt without green lungs is one-sided and discriminates against those who live in the inner cities and cannot afford to use the green belt.
Mr. Squire rose—
Mr. Rooker: I have repeated word for word what I said to the builders and what was reported, yet we have had the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning, who I understand, was not well, appearing on television on 22 January and saying that I had said that we should build "all over the south downs". That was a lie, and I am still waiting for an apology from the Minister.
The result of some land policies is that builders are being virtually forced to go round the country—my own constituency provides a good example — digging up landfill sites 15 to 20 years old, which were filled without control so that no one can be absolutely certain what the sites contain, to provide building land. As the Minister well knows, because we have had exchanges at Question Time on this issue, there is a massive derelict land grant claim of over £500,000 for a 10-acre site in my constituency to dig up waste tipped 15 to 20 years ago.
The environmental services director of Birmingham is opposed to the idea root and branch, not only on environmental grounds, but and on the grounds of the health and safety of my constituents. However, the builders are virtually forced to consider such antisocial, retrograde steps. It would be as stupid to build on the south downs as it would be to have a policy that meant that builders had no device but to dig up that kind of land to provide houses. It would be absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Squire: All I was going to suggest was that although the hon. Member was not in the Chamber at the time, if he reads the record he will see that what he said had been said by at least one hon. Member on the Government Benches.
Mr. Rooker: Yes, I regret that. I apologised for the fact that I had to leave the Chamber after the hon. Member had started to speak, and I apologise now for missing the speech of one of my hon. Friends.
Our motion was drafted with care and precision. It is both responsible and moderate. All that we ask is that it should be the policy of any caring and responsible Government to ensure that there are enough fit homes for all the households that need them. We require a change of policy to bring that about. If the Minister, in reply to the debate, answers no other question, I ask him to say whether he agrees that it ought to be an obligation on any responsible and caring Government to have such a target for their housing policy.
What we were treated to by the Secretary of State was a non-housing speech. The debate has been worth while if only to get that speech on the record. We had enough of it last Wednesday at Question Time, when the Secretary of State said that the Housing Corporation had been given money to run up hostels for the homeless, and when he also said that they were not really homeless but were just registered as homeless. It is true, of course, that the

251
100,000 registered homeless who were accepted last year and who are only the tip of the iceberg of people who are really homeless are not all on the streets without a bed, but does the Secretary of State not appreciate that if local authorities have to use so many of their vacancies to deal with registered homeless people, the ordinary tenancy exchange and transfer scheme will come to a stop?
That must be grossly unfair. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who is not in his place, said that the tenants exchange and mobility schemes were not working properly. One of the reasons for that is that so many of the tenancy allocations are pre-empted by the need to deal with the registered homeless.
As we have said before, we want choice and variety and the freedom of choice to buy or rent. People should not be identified by income and status according to their tenure. That is the position that we are in today, and it has got worse under the Government. For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present when the Secretary of State talked about the housing crisis and the rise in homelessness, I can tell them that he told us about Dick Whittington and shirt buying in Moscow. That was the main thrust of his argument. Housing policy is not safe in his hands. We require a change in housing policy, and for that reason we probably require another Secretary of State.
9.32 pm
The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I regret the attack on my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It marred an otherwise interesting speech. I am sorry that it shows—[Interruption.] Off go the Opposition, behaving exactly in the way that they did when my right hon. Friend made his opening speech, trying to shout down the person at the Dispatch Box. Shout away. It does argument no good, and it does no good to politics or to the reputation of the House.
There is one thing that I welcome in the Opposition motion. That is the recognition that better housing for the people of Britain can be achieved only by a combination of public and private provision. That represents a considerable move forward in Labour party thinking and shows that over the past seven years it has been prepared to think and move. I am quite prepared to take advice from the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Perry Barr about how to do this better, because I too believe that in order to provide better housing and better social provision we need to learn from each other from time to time.
I shall begin with one announcement, one reminiscence and one prediction. The announcement, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, the slip is a result of all those years answering Adjournment debates. My announcement is about the Greenwich by-election. After listening to the elaboration by the hon. Member for Copeland of my part in that election, I and my diary secretary looked closely at my diary. I regret that I have no free time to visit Greenwich during the by-election campaign, although I expect I shall have to find time for a visit to central office for a re-education session in the cellars. That will undoubtedly teach me to be reasonable.
If the Opposition are prepared to pray in aid my qualified praise of a London Labour borough, I hope that they will eqaully pray in aid my strong criticisms of the
252
housing record of many London Labour boroughs. If they are prepared to play it on one side, they should be prepared to play it on the other.
My reminiscence is about my brief time on Oxford city council when the Labour party was in control. I remember that in 1972 and 1973 people in the council began to foam at the mouth when we mentioned the right to buy. They thought that that was bad and impossible because tenants could never afford it and could never manage the housing stock. Some 15 years later we have consensus between the Labour party and the Conservative party about the right to buy. That is a good thing. I shall have more to say later about the alliance view of the right to buy because it is also part of the consensus. Suddenly in the last couple of years we have seen a considerable change and it is reflected in this interesting motion by the Opposition. It says that now we need mixed provision in housing and joint funding from the public and private sectors. That is good.
My prediction for the future, based on my reminiscence, is that in about 10 years 'Tory thinking and philosophy about the right to rent will be equally accepted by Labour Members, and that every strand of housing policy in Britain will follow the Tory lead.
The main sections of my speech will focus on three points. The first is homelessness, which concerns right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The second is the new role that I and my right hon. Friends foresee for local authorities and the provision of better housing — exactly the kind of better housing that we want in Britain. Thirdly, I shall end on the theme of the right to rent, which will continue to be important.
On the issue of homelessness, I was fascinated to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He said that it was 10 years since he had spoken in the House on housing. I hope that it will not be long before we again hear his immensely wise voice, to which we listen with care. [Interruption.] Labour Members should not jeer at the founder of New Society who has had a deep and abiding interest in social trends in Britain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said—these themes were repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Maligns) in his excellent speech—that there are deep social issues which will have to be examined if we are to come to grips with homelessness in Britain.
It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West how good management in his borough had made it unnecessary for there to be recourse by the local authority to bed-and-breakfast provision. One should be as willing to praise local authorities, of whatever political colour, that manage their stock well—I share the view of the hon. Member for Perry Barr on this—as to condemn had management in local authorities. It is good that the borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West has managed without bed-and-breakfast provision.
I wish that the hon. Member for Copeland had been present in the Chamber to listen to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, West and for Croydon, North-West. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman for not being here because he has duties that take him to other parts of the House. Had he heard the detailed arguments which were put forward about the social reasons for housing, he and his hon. Friends would have had cause to

253
reflect on whether it was wise to organise the totally unnecessary shouting down of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment during his introductory speech. That behaviour does rational argument and the political judgment of this place no good.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr gave me pause for thought about the relationship between Government housing policy and social trends in Britain. He listed a number of points, but one that he forgot was the radically and rapidly changing nature of household formation in Britain. Currently, households are getting smaller and smaller, and one would therefore expect to have fewer households but, by the early 1990s there will be a radical decline in the number of households in Britain, which will have an important effect on homelessness.
As my right hon. Friend rightly said in his opening speech, the causes of homelessness go much wider than the supply of housing alone. We need to improve our information about the homeless, why they have lost their homes, what are the best methods of providing temporary accommodation, and so on. We need to consider our policy in the light of that advice. That is why today we have let a contract for a major national study—exactly the sort of contract pressed on us by those interested in homelessness and by lobbying bodies—to be carried out by the university of Birmingham's centre for urban and regional studies. This will be the first comprehensive national study of homelessness since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I think that it will be broadly welcomed.
We are taking a series of measures to deal with the problems of homelessness. In the short time available, I should like to mention two. First, the House will know of the important changes in the arrangements for funding housing association schemes which we announced before Christmas. They have been welcomed by the whole housing association movement. I have yet to hear a dissentient voice — indeed, I have heard far from dissenting voices in the National Federation of Housing Associations, the Housing Corporation, and others. We have allocated an extra £20 million to the Housing Corporation's spending programme specifically for use in schemes in which public and private money are combined. That is one of the themes of this debate.
A further £10 million is to be made available for such schemes from within the corporation's existing programme. About £30 million will be available for schemes in which no more than 30 per cent. of costs are met through grant, with the private sector making up the balance. That is exactly the type of co-operation between the public and private sectors that the Labour Front Bench wants. I welcome the fact that there has been no criticism of these schemes. For £30 million of public expenditure — this is the joy of the scheme — we shall be able to increase housing association investment by £100 million, which will be an enormous benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment — the scheme's pioneer—and I want this fruitful co-operation between the public and private sectors to develop. This is a major breakthrough.
A key priority for the new funding arrangements—it may account for as much as half of the £30 million—is to provide self-contained temporary accommodation for homeless people who would otherwise go into hotels,
254
hostels and boarding houses before getting the permanent accommodation that they need. It is important to remember that some 50 per cent. of those who are accepted as homeless go immediately into permanent accommodation. Everyone recognises that there will always be a need, however good the housing position becomes, for some temporary accommodation in which to house people in housing pressure areas, such as central London, pending permanent accommodation. That is precisely what the policy introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do.
Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although there is a need for temporary accommodation, the critical problem is the shortage of permanent housing to rehouse people from bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Why will not the hon. Gentleman accept the need for more permanent housing, including the leasing arrangements which he stopped last week, as announced in his statement, which is the way to tackle the problem?
Mr. Patten: Of course, in those parts of the country where there is housing pressure we need to increase the supply of housing. In many other parts of the country there is excess housing, as the hon. Gentleman, with his detailed knowledge of the housing world, knows. Big housing associations, such as the Hyde housing association and the Paddington Churches housing association, and 23 other associations are coming forward to carry out schemes in London. A wide welcome has been given to the housing corporations scheme.
Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only limited time.
Secondly, in August last year, we launched an initiative to use the resources for my Department's Estate Action team to bring empty property on council estates back into use for the homeless. We began by focusing on 14 London boroughs with particularly serious problems. Twelve of those boroughs have responded to the initiative. Two London boroughs, Brent and Lambeth, have refused to respond to the initiative offering Government money to bring back into use their estate houses to house the homeless.
Southwark responded to the homelessness initiative, but it wanted to spend its money on municipalised street properties and not on the council estates, despite the well-known criteria of Estate Action. I would apologise to Southwark if I thought that I had been unfairly critical of it on the Nick Ross programme. However, I do not think that I was unfairly critical.
Mr. Freeson: In view of what the Minister has just said, which was a repeat of what the Secretary of State said, will he explain to me why his Department has been issuing press releases—information has also been announced from the town hall—which specify figures that run into millions of pounds which the local authority of Brent had negotiated with his departmental officials for just such schemes in which he is saying they are refusing to participate? Will he explain that to the House?
Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman is more than a little confused. I referred to the offer of Government money through Estate Action to house the homeless in

255
Brent through bringing back into use empty estate houses. That has been refused by Brent and Lambeth. I am not misleading the House.
First, I shall mention the new role for local authorities in dealing with housing problems, but not before I deal with the important point about Newham that was raised by the ex-chairman of the Greater London council, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He gave me scant reward for my kindness in giving up three minutes of my time to let him speak, by calling me reasonable. What a sneer from such a quarter!
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West is worried about the position of the homeless in Newham. So am I. We share that worry, and that is why I am worried that Newham has 2,400 empty council properties. That puts Newham eighth in Britain in terms of the numbers of its empty properties and it puts it second in the percentage of its rented stock.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Patten: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already had some of my time. He will have no more tonight, however charming he is. He needs to go back to Newham and tell it to begin to co-operate more with central Government to fill those 2,400 empty flats and houses.
Secondly, we need a new role for local authorities in housing as a whole. I sometimes think that if we could turn back the clock to the 1920s when Conservative and Labour politicians were starting to construct big council estates, and we could show them then where we have ended up, none of them would wish to have brought about the position that we see before us today.
What we need to do, just as we have managed to develop agreement across the House on a number of housing issues, is to begin to look hard at whether local authorities should regard their role primarily as being that of providers of housing—that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York and other hon. Friends or—whether they should be concerned with the coordination of housing in their area. Should local authorities develop their co-ordinating role to encourage developers and financial institutions to provide housing for rent, to make appropriate interventions by releasing land, by making grants available and to encourage others, such as housing associations and similar bodies, to take on the responsibility?
A number of enlightened local authorities are already doing that. In the long run, with the enhanced role that local authorities can have thanks to the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others last Thursday, we can bring greater variety into the provision of rented housing.
That leads me to my third important theme, which is the right to rent and the need to re-establish some common sense in the private rented sector. Why is it that Britain alone in the western world has a private rented sector that is dying—1·5 million houses? We are losing 70,000 flats and houses a year and only 8 per cent. of our stock is privately rented compared with 30 per cent. in America, 33 per cent. in France and 45 per cent. in West Germany. In every other civilised country in the western world the private rented sector has an important role to play in the provision of housing. The big question we have to ask ourselves is why, uniquely in Britain, that provision cannot be made possible.
256
The hon. Member for Perry Barr reflected on what happened after the Rent Act 1957 and asked a couple of pertinent questions. The private rented sector has been in decline for 70 years. The rate of decline—this point has often been made in my hearing by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who was more moderate tonight than at other times, but I do not want to smear him—increased markedly in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the Opposition have the bizarre idée fixe that the Rent Act 1957 was the cause of the decline. There were two causes. One of the main causes of the decline was clearance. A high proportion of unfit houses in the 1950s that were demolished were homes built for private renting in the 19th century. The decline we saw in the 1950s and 1960s was part and parcel of the great clearance, which, incidentally, was also seen in public sector housing. The second major cause was the sale of rented dwellings into owner-occupation in order to fulfill the enormous demand at that time for home ownership. In retrospect, it can be seen that the 1957 Act could not possibly have stemmed that tide.
Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is not in his place, but if anyone looks at the debate on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill in 1957, which he introduced from the Dispatch Box, one will see that he gave as the reason for taking the lid off rents the fact that it would increase the supply of the private rented sector. In fact, the opposite occurred.
Mr. Patten: I shall read the back numbers of Hansard as the hon. Gentleman recommends.
The Conservative party and the Government are determined to repeat the success that we have had in establishing the right to buy in Britain by re-establishing the right to rent. The right to rent means a better deal for council tenants, better and more local management and a breaking down of monolithic council housing departments. I have heard the Labour party Front Bench spokesmen criticise those departments just as much as we have. It means the development of new forms of management and choice and new forms of ownership. Above all, it means the development of greater choice.
The right to rent in the private sector, as opposed to what I have described for the public sector, means doing something about the appalling situation in Britain where we have housing needs and homelessness next to 540,000 empty privately owned flats and houses. We must do all we can. If someone came here from the moon or Mars arid saw the housing need next to empty houses, he would say that we were mad. That is why we need to see much closer co-operation between the public and private sector. That means the sort of scheme that I announced to the House on Thursday, which I think has been misunderstood by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson).
I announced then that we shall give local authorities exactly the powers that the Labour-dominated and Labour-led Association of Metropolitan Authorities asked me to give it at the last Housing Consultative Council meeting. It asked for a power similar to that given to the Housing Corporation and housing associations to enter into negotiations with the private sector so that we can have reasonable mixed schemes. We have made it available to all local authorities and my right hon. Friend and I hope that local authorities of all political persuasions will in fact make use of it. However, the powers must be used appropriately.

257
Those powers are certainly not intended to featherbed the private sector, which I believe some of the prospective deals would have done because they would have led to an entirely risk-free investment by the private sector. New schemes will have to be submitted to my right hon. Friend for his approval. He must be satisfied that the local authorities' commitment is not open-ended and that the commercial risk of the development rests substantially with the private sector. He must also be convinced, quite rightly, that the housing will be managed and maintained by the private sector bodies concerned and not by the local authorities. By operating the scheme in that way, we will ensure that the housing that is provided is not a recreation of municipal housing by the back door, but the genuinely new sorts of mixed tenure that the hon. Member for Perry Barr said that he wanted.
The time will undoubtedly come when those schemes, after a year or so in operation, will be welcomed by the Opposition. They attacked the right to buy, but they now accept it. They attack the new form of joint funding that their colleagues in local government want, but in a year's time they will think it is a good idea. It will be the same with the right to rent.
I welcome the statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland on assured tenancies and I welcome the way in which the Opposition are moving forward on mixed funding schemes. I am sorry that the hon. Members for Copeland and for Perry Barr and other Labour Members are not prepared to take a long hard look at the private rented sector to see whether we can build some consensus. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that great consensus politician, suggested that we should seek that consensus in this area. Perhaps we should think of a different name from "private rented sector", and then perhaps people would not be so agitated about it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are excitedly discussing the ideas that I am putting forward, and I welcome their approach.
All the problems and opportunities that we have discussed bring us back to the central question of choice—something that has been missing from housing provision for too long. We are still too ready to substitute official choice for individual preference in the destinies of too many ordinary people.
I come now to a very important part of my speech. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) may well feel that he is being ignored and that the alliance has not had a fair crack of the whip in what I have said. I apologise profoundly. I wish to put on record, for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were not present during his speech, what the hon. Gentleman said about the right to buy. The new housing spokesman for the alliance, speaking with the enormous authority of that position, has said that the Liberals and the SDP were no longer in favour of the full right-to-buy policy—[Interruption.] He said that they wanted to give councils, not individuals, the right to decide—
Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister is an earnest seeker after truth. I repeat that we will retain the right to buy. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if the discounts cannot be properly targeted that will minimise the number
258
of houses that are sold? It is the inflexibility of the Government's policy which unbalances the housing stock and minimises the number of council houses for sale.
Mr. Patten: The alliance parties do not like the right to buy. They want to give local councils the right to decide.
Mr. James Hamilton rose in the place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put. put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 268.

Division No. 87]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Dubs, Alfred

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Alton, David

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Anderson, Donald

Eadie, Alex

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Eastham, Ken

Ashley. Rt Hon Jack

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Ashton, Joe

Fatchett, Derek

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Faulds, Andrew

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Barron, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Flannery, Martin

Beith, A. J.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bell, Stuart

Forrester, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Derek

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

Foulkes, George

Bermingham, Gerald

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Bidwell, Sydney

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Blair, Anthony

Garrett, W. E.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

George, Bruce

Boyes, Roland

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Godman, Dr Norman

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Golding, Mrs Llin

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

Gould, Bryan

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

Gourlay, Harry

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Bruce, Malcolm

Hamilton, W. W (Fife Central)

Buchan, Norman

Hancock, Michael

Caborn, Richard

Hardy, Peter

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Campbell, Ian

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Heffer, Eric S.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cartwright, John

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

Clarke, Thomas

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Clay, Robert

Howells, Geraint

Clelland, David Gordon

Hoyle, Douglas

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Janner, Hon Greville

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Corbett, Robin

John, Brynmor

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Craigen, J. M.

Kennedy, Charles

Crowther, Stan

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kirkwood, Archy

Cunningham, Dr John

Lambie, David

Dalyell, Tarn

Lamond, James

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Leadbitter, Ted

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Leighton, Ronald

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

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Dewar, Donald

Litherland, Robert

Dixon, Donald

Livsey, Richard

Dormand, Jack

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Douglas, Dick

Loyden, Edward

259

McCartney, Hugh

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Rogers, Allan

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Rooker, J. W.

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Maclennan, Robert

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

McNamara, Kevin

Rowlands, Ted

McTaggart, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Madden, Max

Sheerman, Barry

Mallon, Seamus

Sheldon, Rt Hon R,

Marek, Dr John

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Martin, Michael

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Maxton, John

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

Maynard, Miss Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

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

Meadowcroft, Michael

Snape, Peter

Michie, William

Soley, Clive

Mikardo, Ian

Spearing, Nigel

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Strang, Gavin

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Straw, Jack

Nellist, David

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

O'Brien, William

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

O'Neill, Martin

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tinn, James

Park, George

Wainwright, R.

Parry, Robert

Wallace, James

Patched, Terry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wareing, Robert

Pendry, Tom

Weetch, Ken

Pike, Peter

Welsh, Michael

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

White, James

Prescott, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Radice, Giles

Winnick, David

Raynsford, Nick

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Redmond, Martin

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Richardson, Ms Jo

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Mr. John McWilliam.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Durant, Tony

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Farr, Sir John

Ancram, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Fletcher, Sir Alexander

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Baldry, Tony

Forman, Nigel

Batiste, Spencer

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forth, Eric

Benyon, William

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Best, Keith

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bevan, David Gilroy

Franks, Cecil

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fry, Peter

Bottom ley, Peter

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Galley, Roy

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Budgen, Nick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Burt, Alistair

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Butcher, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gow, Ian

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

Gower, Sir Raymond

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Grant, Sir Anthony

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Greenway, Harry

Cockeram, Eric

Gregory, Conal

Colvin, Michael

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Coombs, Simon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Cope, John

Grist, Ian

Corrie, John

Ground, Patrick

Couchman, James

Grylls, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Dicks, Terry

Hanley, Jeremy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Hannam, John

Dover, Den

Hargreaves, Kenneth

260

Harris, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Harvey, Robert

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Haselhurst, Alan

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Mudd, David

Hawksley, Warren

Murphy, Christopher

Hayes, J.

Neale, Gerrard

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Needham, Richard

Hayward, Robert

Nelson, Anthony

Heddle, John

Neubert, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Hickmet, Richard

Norris, Steven

Hind, Kenneth

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hirst, Michael

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Holt, Richard

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Howard, Michael

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Pollock, Alexander

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Porter, Barry

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Powell, William (Corby)

Irving, Charles

Powley, John

Jackson, Robert

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Price, Sir David

Jessel, Toby

Proctor, K. Harvey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Raffan, Keith

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Rathbone, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rhodes James, Robert

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knox, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Lang, Ian

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Latham, Michael

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lawrence, Ivan

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rost, Peter

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lester, Jim

Ryder, Richard

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Lilley, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lord, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Lyell, Nicholas

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

McCrindle, Robert

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Macfarlane, Neil

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Shersby, Michael

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Silvester, Fred

Maclean, David John

Sims, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McQuarrie, Albert

Speed, Keith

Madel, David

Speller, Tony

Major, John

Spencer, Derek

Malins, Humfrey

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Malone, Gerald

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maples, John

Squire, Robin

Marland, Paul

Stanbrook, Ivor

Marlow, Antony

Steen, Anthony

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stern, Michael

Mather, Sir Carol

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stokes, John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Merchant, Piers

Sumberg, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Miscampbell, Norman

Temple-Moris, Peter

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Terlezki, Stefan

261

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Warren, Kenneth

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Watson, John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Watts, John

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Wheeler, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Whitfield, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Whitney, Raymond

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wiggin, Jerry

Trippier, David

Wilkinson, John

Trotter, Neville

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Nicholas

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Wolfson, Mark

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wood, Timothy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Woodcock, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Tellers for the Noes:

Waller, Gary

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this house welcomes the Opposition's long overdue recognition of the need to combine public and private provision in housing; commends the Government for taking steps to re-establish the right to rent; recognises that further progress in increasing choice and supply depends on recreating a market in rented housing and harnessing private sector resources, and therefore rejects calls for more municipal housing which can only lead, as it has done in the past, to poorly managed, badly maintained unpopular estates provided at excessive public expenditure cost; and commends instead this Government's achievements in seeing one and a half million more homes built since May 1979, and in widening the opportunities for home ownership, so that there are now well over two million more home owners than in 1979, and in meeting housing needs in the most efficient and effective way.

Privilege
10.14 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, about which I have given you private notice, to seek your advice on a statement that appeared on the tapes of which I had given you a copy. The statement reads:
"Writs out over Zircon film. Writs sought by the Freedom Association were issued by the High Court tonight against eight people, including Labour MP Tony Benn and journalist Duncan Campbell, alleging a breach of Official Secrets Act over the banned Zircon satellite TV programme. The move was made by Norris McWhirter, the Association's chairman, following the showing of the banned BBC programme at a public meeting in London last night. Freedom Association said those named in the writs had been associated with the public showing of the film as speakers or organisers."
I appreciate that there is no right for hon. Members to be protected for what they do outside the House, and I spoke at the meeting yesterday before which the film was shown. However, three issues are raised that I should like to put to you briefly, Mr. Speaker.
First, under the Official Secrets Acts, prosecutions require the authority of the Attorney-General, and it must be a matter of concern as to whether the Attorney-General has given authority for me to be prosecuted. Secondly, what is the position if the writ is served in the Palace of Westminster? Thirdly, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges to which this matter has been referred. Under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the Committee can, if it so decides, see the film. What is my position as a member of the Committee able to see the film under your ruling if, as occurred last night, I saw part of the film somewhere else?
I do not expect a ruling tonight, but I felt that I should bring the matter to your attention at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps at a later stage it might be possible for you to say something.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a matter about which I shall say nothing at the moment. I shall communicate with him later.

Prevention of Terrorism
10.16 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
The effect of this order will be to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22 March.
Since the House debated the similar order a year ago, there have been no major terrorist incidents on the mainland of Great Britain, and for that we should all be thankful—and grateful in particular to those who have worked tirelessly to keep us safe. The danger continues to hang over us—we should make no mistake about that. In Northern Ireland, terrorism continues to haunt the life of the Province, although the terrorist is no nearer reaching his objective, and fails to prevent the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland from going about their lives in peace.
The main change which has occurred in the past 12 months is the growing international understanding of the nature of terrorism, and co-operation in dealing with it. No longer, when European Ministers meet, is terrorism considered as something peculiar to the Irish problem or perhaps to the Basque problem in Spain. Regrettably, our partners, whether it be in France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, all now experience within their own frontiers the particular horrors of terrorism and accept fully the need to co-operate in tackling it. Of course that co-operation is still imperfect. The change which has taken place shows how sensible the House was to accept Lord Jellicoe's recommendation and extend to international terrorism as a whole some of the powers which in the original Act were reserved for terrorism originating in the problems of Northern Ireland.
No one in this House disagrees about the distinctive evil of terrorism—the attempt to influence political thinking not by argument or persuasion but by killing, maiming or frightening innocent people. The argument in the House begins when we consider whether special powers are needed by the police and the Government in dealing with terrorism. I hope to persuade the House that this new order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a necessary part, although only part, of the armoury against acts of terrorism which can threaten a free society.
However, I shall not be satisfied simply to win the vote at the end of this debate. I would regard it as very serious if Her Majesty's Opposition were once again to oppose the measure. I hope the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will have the wisdom and stoutheartedness to abandon the irresponsible precedent set since 1981 and go back to the much healthier situation which prevailed before that date, when Government and Opposition were able to agree on the basic elements of our response to terrorism.
The powers in the Act are exceptional, but as a counterbalance, the Act is subject to unusually close scrutiny and frequent review. Once a year, Parliament has the opportunity to decide whether the Act should continue in force. Moreover, the operation of the Act is closely monitored by an independent person appointed specially for the task. There cannot be many other powers under
264
which decisions made by a Secretary of State are so rigorously brought to the attention of a person appointed by the Secretary of State, but independent of him.
I accept the wisdom which led Parliament to press three years ago for this independent review of the operation of the Act. The House was, I know, grateful to Sir Cyril Philips for his thorough study of the way the Act worked in 1984 and 1985. I know the House will be grateful to my noble and learned Friend, the Viscount Colville of Culross, for having carried out his task as Sir Cyril's successor so quickly and for making himself available to receive representations both in London and in Belfast.
I hope the House will welcome the publication of Lord Colville's report in plenty of time for this debate. He has visited a number of air and sea ports during his work, some of which have not been covered in previous reviews, to see the legislation in operation. As his report shows, he examined individual files on extensions of detention under section 12 of the Act and on article 9 of the order and exclusion orders and discussed the cases with officials and police, here and in Northern Ireland. His approach has been notably thorough. Those who are worried that the exceptional powers under the Act can lead to harassment and unfairness should find much to reassure them in the report of my noble and learned Friend.
I turn now to the two important and to some extent controversial powers under the Act, those of detention and exclusion. Lord Colville's report shows that in Great Britain 202 people were detained under the provisions of the Act in 1986, and 1,309 in Northern Ireland. This represents a decrease of 64 in Great Britain and an increase of 371 in Northern Ireland compared to 1985. On the mainland, as last year, about one quarter of the detentions related to suspected involvement in international, not Irish terrorism.
In Great Britain, just under a quarter of those detained were detained for more than 48 hours. In Northern Ireland, there were more detentions for a longer period; three quarters of the 483 detentions were for five days or more. But this year there has been less use of the whole period of detention permitted by the Act; whereas, in 1985, 54 people were detained in Great Britain for the whole seven days, in 1986 that figure was 25.
But of course numbers do not tell the whole story. I cannot give details of many of the cases which occurred during the year, because some are still sub judice, but I would like to point out one particular example of the use of these powers in respect of international terrorism. I choose this example because it illustrates a point strongly made by Lord Colville, although it is not an example he quoted—a point which I urge the Opposition to take on board.
The justification of these powers, as opposed to the ordinary powers of the criminal law, is that they enable the police to prevent horrors before they happen. In September and October of last year, six people were detained under the Act on suspicion of membership of the Abu Nidhal group, an international terrorist organisation. Five of the six have now left the United Kingdom. Three were deported and I agreed that a further two should be allowed to make a supervised departure. The sixth is still detained awaiting the outcome of a review by the three advisers. It is clear that, without the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the police would have had no power to detain these people.

265
It is certainly possible that after a time there would have been evidence which would have enabled the police to detain, interview and perhaps charge the people. But I do not think the Opposition would seriously argue that the police should in such cases be content to wait until evidence became available. That evidence might well have taken the form of corpses, maimed bodies and devastated property. It is because of the Act, and because of the vigilance of the authorities, that we were able to be rid of this group before they did us any harm. I believe that must be right.
Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the extension of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to include international terrorism is new? Secondly, will he explain exactly on what grounds those people were detained, so that we may judge whether they could have been detained under other powers in the criminal law or in immigration legislation? My belief is that the Government have extended the Act to international terrorism to justify legislation that does not stand up in its own right.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady knows better than that. She knows that the extension of the powers to international terrorism was approved by the House in the 1984 Act as a result of Lord Jellicoe's review. It corresponds to something that is clearly a reality—that the threat of terrorism in this country is not now exclusively something which comes to us across the Irish sea. It involves a considerable range of threats of international terrorism. Mention of the immigration legislation in this context is frivolous. It is only under the Prevention of Terrorism Act that the police have the powers which are necessary to detain people of the kind that I have mentioned for the period which is necessary for questioning. I stand wholly by that point.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Home Secretary agree that, where a person travels on a non-European passport, and where a person is known to be associated with an international group which has terrorist connections, at the normal port of entry there is the right of refusal of entry?
Mr. Hurd: It is possible, and indeed it often happens, that the information which links particular people to a terrorist group becomes available after they have entered the country. That is the reality of the situation. The Opposition are beginning to wriggle uncomfortably under the fact that it is actually the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act—
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Mr. Hurd: No; I am not giving way to the hon. Lady again.
It is the powers which are available under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and only those powers, which enable the police to detain and question people of this kind to the extent necessary to be rid of them, as in the case I quoted, and to prevent them from committing the horrors which otherwise they might commit.
I have made my point and I hold firmly to it. May I reinforce it by saying that Lord Colville made the same point in a different way in paragraph 2.27 of his report when he wrote:
"The powers criticised are pre-emptive."
266
This is exactly the point.
"If they did not exist the police would have to wait until the terrorists had gone far enough in the preparation of their plot to bomb or shoot for sustainable evidence of conspiracy or an attempt to be at hand. Presumably it is not suggested that they should be allowed actually to explode the bomb or fire the gun."
Unfortunately, that is exactly what is suggested by those who oppose the powers. That might well be the exact result of failure to renew the powers.
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Mr. Hurd: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again. The hon. Lady showed a remarkable lack of knowledge of the sequence of events which led to the extension of the Act to cover international terrorism.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary confirm that immigration officers, if they have reason to believe that a person seeking to enter the country is not genuine, have powers to detain him for a period sufficient to carry out inquiries and any interviews that may be necessary? In what regard are the powers which he has advocated to the House dissimilar from the powers available to immigration officers?
Mr. Hurd: We are talking about the powers of the police to detain and question in connection with information about terrorism.
Mr. Bermingham: Why let them in?
Mr. Hurd: Because the information frequently becomes available after they are in. Hon. Members who are constantly urging that immigration officers should be more lax in the way in which they deal with these matters are in a poor position if they then say that they should be more strict. It often happens—or it occasionally happens—that foreigners are admitted on grounds which appear to be legitimate, and later it becomes apparent, from information which then becomes available, partly as a result of the increased international co-operation of which I am talking, that they are or may be engaged in terrorist activity, and that is where the powers of the PTA come in.
Lord Colville also sets out persuasively the kinds of circumstances which can justify the police applying for extra time to hold a detainee under the Act. The need to keep terrorist suspects separate, the need often to interview through an interpreter, the need to seek information from foreign police and security services are all requirements set out in his report, which Lord Colville found to be persuasive, and which I hope the House will agree are persuasive.
I come to the other controversial power under the Act—the power to exclude an individual from part of the United Kingdom. This power of exclusion is certainly extraordinary and severe. In his report last year, Sir Cyril Philips hoped that no new exclusion orders would be made, and this year Lord Colville—although his argument is somewhat different—also hopes that steps can be taken to improve port control so that the power to exclude need no longer be sought perhaps, he says, from 1988 onwards.
In operating this power case by case during 1986, I had Sir Cyril Philips' point very much in mind. Indeed, I hope that even without that I would have realised that the power of exclusion was of a kind which could only be used very sparingly in a free society. I will explain how it works. I

267
personally consider all applications made by the police for exclusion from Great Britain and I apply strict tests. I need to be satisfied that the individual concerned is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
I would not make an order unless there is a clear indication that the individual is actively involved in terrorism or has been so, in most cases within the past three years. By involvement in acts of terrorism I do not mean that he or she has been seen in the company of known terrorists or has certain political views. I look at each application for indications of active personal involvement.
Using this strict test, I made nine new orders during the year in respect of people whom I considered to be involved in acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not membership of a known terrorist organisation sufficient?
Mr. Hurd: No.
Mr. Lawrence: Why not?
Mr. Hurd: In my view, it is not sufficient. I apply the test more strictly than that. I am talking about active personal involvement in terrorist activity, and I believe that is the right criterion for the use of this power of exclusion.
Mr. Seamus Mallon rose—
Mr. Hurd: I will give way shortly to the hon. Gentleman, who has a deep personal knowledge of this problem.
Most of the exclusion papers which come across my desk do not deal with applications for new orders. Most of them are reviews of existing orders. As a result of these reviews, 103 existing orders were revoked and 54 orders renewed. Whereas on 31 December 1985 212 exclusion orders were made in Great Britain, that figure had dropped by almost half by 31 December 1986, to 114.
This reduction came about partly because of cases where the police did not apply for renewal of the order, but partly because, as Lord Colville reports, in about half the cases I turned down police applications for renewed orders. That is because I am clear that this power should be used sparingly.
Mr. Mallon: Could I ask the Secretary of State how many of the subjects of the nine new orders, when returned to Northern Ireland, were charged or interviewed by the police and how many of them were charged with specific acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland? If they were returned to the Republic of Ireland, how many were there charged with acts of terrorism?
Mr. Hurd: That is a different point, if I may say so. It is a legitimate question, but the hon. Member is assuming that the power of exclusion is only applicable in those cases. I have set out clearly the criteria which I apply. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has shown in his intervention that he thinks the criteria that I apply are too strict. The implication of the question of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is that they are not strict enough and that I should apply them only in cases where there is evidence capable of being produced in court. But I am freely saying that this
268
is an exceptional and severe power, and I am saying and, I think, proving to the House that I use it very sparingly indeed.
As the House knows, there is provision for the individual concerned to make representations against an order, which is then considered by an independent adviser. During 1986, 13 cases were considered by the adviser and 10 people were interviewed in London or Belfast. I accepted the opinion of the adviser in all these cases and revoked three orders as a result.
As a result of this policy, exclusion orders now cover very many fewer people than before. I do not believe that this is a conclusive argument against continuing the power. It simply shows that the power has been used with increasing strictness. In plain terms, what we are mostly talking about, of course, is a power which could prevent or deter from travelling to the mainland people who intend to carry out terrorist attacks. That is different from saying that there is evidence which could be produced to charge them, either in the Republic or in the Province. It is one thing to say that this power ought to be used very sparingly. I accept that, and I think that I have shown the House that I do. It is another thing to be sure—I think that one has to be sure—that it can be done away with altogether. I do not at present accept that.
I am not at present conv:Lnced that, by enhancing port controls, we can provide an effective substitute for the power to exclude. What is at stake here, of course, is the safety of the whole community and I do not want to propose any change which would put that safety in greater jeopardy. I am prepared to accept Lord Colville's suggestion that we should look seriously and thoroughly at this possibility between now and the time when the order comes up again next year. I hope to discuss the problem with him very shortly and after that we will consider what, if any, changes can sensibly be made.
We shall in any case look sympathetically at some of the points about the detailed administration of the power which Lord Colville goes on to make—for example, the possibility of finding better ways of letting people know when their exclusion orders have been revoked or are being reviewed.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is now over halfway through its five-year life. We shall have to consider before long what should take the place of the Act after it expires in 1989. Lord Colville may be right in suggesting that international terrorism is now so firmly rooted, contrary to the knowledge of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) who first interrupted me, that it is sensible to regard anti-terrorist legislation as a permanent part of our law, perhaps with special flexibility in measures affecting Northern Ireland, but the Government have not yet considered the long-term future of the Act, and we will, of course, keep the House informed of our thinking.
Meanwhile, it is essential in my judgment that the House passes this order and enables these powers to continue. It is essential not because these are attractive powers but because they are necessary for the protection of the community. The determination of the House to resist terrorism will be much strengthened if the Opposition this year could bring themselves to support the order; and I appeal to the right hon. Member for Gorton to do so. He was not, I think, in charge when his party first lurched into irresponsibility by refusing to support this order in 1981 and 1982. He could add to his reputation by rescuing it from that irresponsibility tonight.

269
I commend the order to the House.
10.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This debate is about how we should fight terrorism. It is not about whether we should fight it. As the Home Secretary said, every hon. Member loathes terrorism and wishes to combat and destroy it. Every one of us detests the whole savage business of murder and explosions, hostages and ultimatums. All of us oppose trading with terrorists and making deals with them.
This debate does not take place each year so that one hon. Member or one party can prove that he, she or it is more anti-terrorist than another hon. Member of party. It takes place because the Government must prove to Parliament that there is a case for renewing a statute that will lapse unless Parliament agrees to renew it. In seeking renewal, the Government try to make the most of two contradictory arguments. Depending on the circumstances, they say that there is so much terrorism that they cannot do without the Act, or that at the moment there is so little terrorism that the Act has proved its worth. To put it another way, on the one hand they say that the Act is working so well that obviously we must keep it, and on the other hand they admit that the Act is working so badly that there is clearly an immense need for it.
The Home Secretary says darkly, and implied last year and this year, that if only we knew what he knows we would accept the need for the Act, but he never gives us conclusive, convincing information. He never proves that any of the much applauded successes by the police against terrorists could not have been achieved without this Act. When he says that the Act was used in such-and-such a circumstance, on so many occasions, he does not demonstrate or prove whether any other enactment could, in the absence of this Act, have been used just as successfully.
The right hon. Gentleman limply sought to provide an example relating to Abu Nidal, but his attempt to make that argument proved the point that I am seeking to establish, namely, that he cannot demonstrate that without this Act those persons would not have been dealt with.
Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: May I just finish this argument? Let us look at the matter of dealing with people at the port of entry. I said many months ago in the House that it is easier for an international terrorist to gain entry to this House than it is for an Indian grandmother to come to Britain for a wedding. That means that Indian grandmothers are excluded and this Abu Nidal lot can get in. The Home Secretary says that he does not have the powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to deal with such people when they have entered. In that case, I suggest that he consults a Minister who has more intimate knowledge of the Immigration Act 1971.
If police or immigration officers can swoop on an innocent man, pick him up on the street without telling his wife where he is, take him away and put him in a remand centre and question him—as happened to a constituent of mine—and if I am able to get him released only after much effort; certainly those authorities ought to be able
270
to deal with people who come from a land from which terrorists are known to come and ought to be able to deal with them in a far more stringent way.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is being unreal and absurd. The idea that once people have been admitted to this country the Immigration Act 1971 or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 enables the police to do what they have to do, which is to detain and question them, is simply unreal.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the powers do not exist to detain and question for seven days. [Interruption.] The more the Opposition barrack, the more they show their ignorance. These powers were necessary in this case and no other powers would have done the trick.
Mr. Kaufman: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes a closer look at his powers in the Immigration Act 1971 and at the way in which those powers are exercised in an extremely rigorous way on innocent people, let alone people who wish to come here to blow up, maim and murder when they arrive.
We know two things. The first is that this is a temporary Act, and that even if it is renewed tonight and again next year it will fall two years from now. The second is that last year the Prime Minister said of the Act:
"The Government believe that this legislation will be necessary as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains."—[Official Report, 24 April 1986; Vol 96, c.208]
That was an absolute statement, far more absolute than anything that any sensible Home Secretary had ever said, and far more absolute than anything contained in Viscount Colville's report. On that criterion of the Prime Minister, if the Government were returned at the next election the legislation would be enacted all over again in precisely its present form, without the Home Secretary volunteering the kind of potential re-examination of exclusion orders that he mentioned in his speech.
Mrs. Clare Short: My right hon. Friend may be aware that I worked in the Home Office from 1970 to 1975. During the latter part of that time Viscount Colville was a junior Tory Home Office Minister of not much standing. The House should be aware of that when he is quoted as some great authority on the impartiality of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall always accept my hon. Friend's expertise on these matters. When it comes to matching her expertise against that of the Home Secretary, I shall place my money on her any day of the week. My hon. Friend studies the material and she knows about it; the Home Secretary reads a brief. However, I have to tell my hon. Friend that I intend to quote Viscount Colville in my own interest, and therefore I shall not dismiss him totally. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
We know, because Minister after Minister in the Government has said it, that this is, in successive Conservative Home Secretaries' words, an "intensely undesirable Act" whose powers
"infringe our shared concept of civil liberties".
They
"make a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".
They
"make sad inroads into our cherished tradition of civil liberties."
Last year, the present Home Secretary, when he asked the House for renewal, said:

271
"The Act makes substantial inroads on ordinary civil liberties."—[Official Report, 19 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 415]
Clearly nobody likes the Act, so can its continuance be justified by its achievements? We should look at the record and see what it tells us about the Act's achievements. Government statistics published last month demonstrate that, starting from the introduction of the legislation to the end of last year, 92 per cent. of those detained in Britain under the Act have not been subject to any charge. Only 3 per cent. have been charged with offences under the legislation, and 38 per cent. of those have been charged only with failure to co-operate with examination at the port, which is an offence created by the Act, rather than solved by it.
Viscount Colville points out in his report that the powers are under challenge before the European Commission of Human Rights at Strasbourg, and in July 1986 the commissioners ruled that the applications were admissible. One of the issues is the length of time that a person may be detained without being charged or released.
In his report on the Act, Viscount Colville supports the continuation of the detention powers. He says that it is a "simplistic" approach to seek to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the legislation and to oppose its renewal on the basis of the small percentage of those detained who are charged with offences under it. I agree with that. Viscount Colville argues that the Act creates few offences and that they are not of a particularly serious nature. He cites other Acts as providing a fuller picture, and I agree with him about that—they do. Of those charged with offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, only 2 per cent. of those detained were found guilty of any offence, and only 0·5 per cent. were found guilty of offences meriting more than one year's imprisonment.
Mr. Robert Parry: My right hon. Friend has made a very relevant point. Does he agree that it is wrong that, under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, people who are arrested or detained and then released without any evidence being produced that they have been involved in any criminal activities should have their fingerprints and photographs retained on the files?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall deal with that point and with the proportion of those detained who are charged with any kind of offence under any type of legislation, let alone under the prevention of terrorism legislation. This is the test that Viscount Colville uses. He says that it is "simplistic" to look at offences under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act with which people are charged and that we should look more widely.
Let us look more widely at those offences. Of those detained under the Act and charged with criminal offences under other Acts, only 4 per cent. were found guilty, and fewer than 2 per cent. received prison sentences of one year or more. All told, fewer than 2·5 per cent. of those detained were found to have committed offences of any seriousness.
Mr. Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people are charged, there must have been evidence for that action? If there is evidence at the time of arrest, there are adequate powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and various other statutes, for the police to investigate and lay charges appropriately. Therefore, there is no need for this Act.
Mr. Kaufman: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Police and Criminal Act powers would provide opportunities to detain the overwhelming majority of those who are detained, but even those powers are not required to detain the considerable majority of those who are detained. The Home Secretary cannot even use the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as an argument for the types of policies that he is pursuing.
It is up to the Government to prove that even these few persons—80 out of more than 6,400—would not have been caught, charged and convicted if this legislation had not been on the statute book. Of those detained under this legislation, 95 per cent. have been completely innocent of anything, however trivial.
Mr. Lawrence: What about the other 5 per cent.?
Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary has failed to demonstrate that the other 5 per cent. would not have been caught without this legislation on the statute book. Indeed, one is sometimes led to believe from the Home Secretary's arguments that the only way in which we can stop, say, the Abu Nidal group from coming to this country is not by having this Act on the stature book but by having visa requirements for terrorists.
If the Home Secretary can still seek to quote Lord Colville's report in favour of the continuance of the detention power, he certainly cannot do so with regard to the power to make exclusion orders. Last year Sir Cyril Philips, in his report on the Act, came out strongly against exclusion orders. He argued that the power to make them
"should be one of the first powers in the Act to be repealed"
The Home Secretary curtly rejected that recommendation. In doing so, he stated on l9 February 1986 that the exclusion power
"has sometimes been described as a power of internal exile."
He insisted firmly:
"that is misleading".—[Official Report, 19 February 1986, Vol. 92, c. 417.]
Yet on page six of his report Viscount Colville describes the exclusion power as a form
"a form of internal exile".
The Colville report deals with exclusion powers at some length. It states:
"The issue is essentially one for Great Britain. In practice it relates to the amount of intelligence work which has to be carried out in England, Wales and Scotland by the police and security services. If exclusion orders disappeared it is possible that port procedures, such as carding and other examination under the Order might become marginally more intrusive. By comparison with Northern Ireland, the population of Great Britain and the flow of travellers into and out of it is vastly greater. Vigilance against terrorist inroads would have to be ensured as well from Northern Ireland as from the rest of the world.
In my view this would be more acceptable than a system of internal exile; any resultant criticisms would have to be considered sympathetically but in the light of the abolition of a power which the public may have seen as necessary to restrict the movement of Northern Ireland terrorists arid contain their activities, but which now is not sufficiently used to stem the tide of protest. The deterrent effect is not to be underestimated, even if it cannot be quantified; but the police have other powers to prevent outbursts of Northern Irish terrorism in Great Britain."
That is the noble Friend of the Home Secretary, whom he has quoted in his own aid.
Either after the Philips report last year, or after the Colville report this year, the Home Secretary could have prepared to remove the exclusion power in the renewal order this year. He could have used the powers that he has

273
to discontinue only that part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He should have done so. He had been advised to do so twice by the persons whom he asked to review the Act. He ignored their advice. One wonders why he asks for it if he ignores it so consistently. If only because of the Home Secretary's failure to take seriously that considered advice two years running, from people whom he asked to advise him, we shall vote against this continuance order tonight.
Viscount Colville concludes his report with a carefully argued critique against the continuance of the Act as a whole. He makes the very point that the Home Secretary made, but he makes it in reverse. The Home Secretary said that we need the Act because it started as an Act to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, but has now been amplified to deal with other forms of terrorism and there are many other kinds of terrorism around.
Viscount Colville says that for that very reason the Act should not continue to exist any longer. He says quite simply:
"It does appear strange that the main measure which is designed to give powers against international terrorism should be annually renewable, subject to a life-span no longer than March 1989, and completely entangled with the Northern Irish problem, from which historically the legislation grew."
That is why Viscount Colville says
"In the light of all this it seems to me that HMG might like to start again."
Very soon, whichever Government are in office, the Act will be extinguished. The Act creates, in some quarters, sympathy for those thousands of people wrongfully detained on inaccurate or unreliable suspicion of terrorism. That prevalent inaccuracy of suspicion, the 95 per cent. who are not found guilty of any offence whatsoever after being detained, militates against the acceptance of the existence of terrorism where it does exist. In eroding basic civil liberties this Act hands free of charge a victory to those whose objective it is to destroy our civil liberties.
The Act is a left-over from history. It is a left-over from a special time and a special circumstance, the same special time and the same special circumstance that led to the conviction of those now in prison for the Birmingham pub bombings. The Secretary of State has had the courage to say that there must be a new and searching look at those convictions. He should have the same courage to take a new and searching look at this legislation. To encourage him to do so, we shall vote against this renewal order tonight.
10.59 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: The attractive feature of Lord Colville's report is that there are some light moments in what is otherwise an extremely serious matter. For example, I was fascinated to discover in his report that one of the oil platforms that he visited has three legs in Scotland and one in Norway. Lord Colville certainly did a pretty thorough job and wrote a most interesting report. The important thing—
Mr. Mallon: On the matter of the thorough job done by Lord Colville, I should inform the House that when he visited Northern Ireland he made no contact with the party to which I belong, he made no contact with me as spokesman on justice for that party, and he certainly
274
seemed to ignore the views of that section of the community that suffers most from the legislation. That is the thorough job he did.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: No doubt Lord Colville will take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The important thing about the report is that, consistent with the reports of Lord Jellicoe and Sir Cyril Philips before him, Lord Colville has come to the conclusion that basically the Act remains necessary. It is true that he has some criticisms and particularly in respect of exclusion orders, his criticisms are trenchant and will need to be dealt with. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will be minded to look at the recommendations on exclusion orders before the House again considers the Act. It cannot be gain said that Lord Jellicoe, Sir Cyril Philips and now Lord Colville, each of them very different men, have looked at the facts, interviewed the people concerned—
Mr. Kevin McNamara: They are all Tories.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not think that Sir Cyril Philips would agree with that description.
In any event, all three of them, quite independently, have come to the conclusion that fundamentally the Act is necessary. They arrive at that conclusion for what I should have thought was the most obvious reason in the world. There is a terrorists threat to our country and its people. That threat is manifestly becoming greater in Europe, the middle east and elsewhere and it is almost certainly the fact that people in this country and elsewhere are alive today who would not be alive if the police had been unable to use the pre-emptive powers of the Act to arrest, detain and exclude them.
It is always difficult to prove a negative; I cannot dispute that. However, I have some access, as no doubt other hon. Members have, to the police service and to those involved in dealing with terrorism, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is the absolute conviction of those who have to deal with the terrorist problem and put their lives at risk on our behalf that if they were deprived of the Act they could not do the job. It is their conviction that there are, as I have said, people alive in our country today who, without the powers in the hands of the police, would be dead.
I hope that no hon. Member who does not have to deal with the terrorist problem will so lightly discard the judgment of those who risk their lives on our account. It is simply arrogance on the part of those—I exclude the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) from this—who live comfortable lives here to say that they know so much better than our police officers and other persons who risk their lives to protect us. The evidence is pretty clear—
Ms. Clare Short: What the hon. Gentleman says is serious and he has to give examples or it is worthless. Surely, throughout history, when one balances civil liberties against the need to prevent crime, those who advocate the prevention of crime will say, "If we could arrest everybody whenever we felt like it we could prevent crime." It is no good the hon. Gentleman simply saying that; he must tell us time and day, and who are the people whose lives have been saved because of the Prevention of Terrorism Act otherwise his point is worthless.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Lady may feel that it is worthless, but she inhabits a peculiar role if she imagines that it is possible precisely to identify those things that have not happened on account of the pre-emptive action of the police. I shall give her some facts. In Northern Ireland in 1976, 297 of our fellow citizens were done to death by terrorists. In 1977, the figure was 112; in 1978 it was 81; in 1979 it was 113; in 1980 it was 75; in 1981 it was 101; in 1982 it was 97; in 1983 it was 77; in 1984 it was 64; in 1985 it was 54; and last year it was 61. That is an appalling toll of our fellow citizens.
As the hon. Lady challenged me, I ask whether she is prepared to say that she is certain that the figure of 97 killed in 1982 would have been fewer or more had the Act not existed? How can she possibly argue in that fashion?
Mr. Ron Leighton: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is he attempting to prove that the Act does not prevent terrorism and, therefore, does not work?
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Not at all. Indeed, I could argue from the statistics—but I shall not—that there has been a happy reduction in the numbers killed since the Act and the emergency powers relating to Northern Ireland that flow from it have been in operation. I would not make that claim, but nor can the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) make the contrary claim that, because I am unable to identify those who, as a result of the Act, are alive, the Act does not work. Her logic is not acceptable.
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I must get on; the hon. Lady will wish to speak in the debate, and no doubt there will be an opportunity for her to do so.
Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman challenged me.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall give way to the hon. Lady once more.
Ms. Clare Short: I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman a serious proposition that I believe to be true. Successive legislation, this Act and the emergency powers cause such disgruntlement, especially within Northern Ireland, that they are a recruiting sergeant for people who engage in terrorism. That is my serious judgment, and it is the serious judgment of many people.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Why does not the hon. Lady make that point if she is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye?
Ms. Clare Short: Because the hon. Gentleman challenged me.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is a general point, not an argument with me.
In addition to the deaths that have occurred in Northern Ireland, and they continue, during the past year or so there has been an enormous increase in terrorist actions throughout Europe, and some of them affect us deeply. The attempt to blow up the E1 A1 flight from London to Tel Aviv led to the conviction and imprisonment of Nezar Hindawi. Subsequently, because of the clear involvement of the Syrian embassy, including its ambassador, diplomatic relations between Britain and Syria were severed on 31 October.
Two men arrested under the Act are currently awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy to murder two leading
276
members of the Sikh community in Britain; no one is awaiting trial charged with the attempted murder of a Sikh in Derby. On 18 December" at Birmingham Crown court, two Sikhs were found guilty of conspiracy to murder Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister. So it goes on; terrorism remains an appalling threat to this country.
The question with which the House is being asked to deal is simply whether we should provide the powers that the police and the three independent examiners—Sir Cyril Philips, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Colville—have concluded, in the circumstances, to be necessary. I believe that it would be utterly derelict of us to remove from the police and security services the powers that they believe are needed to do the job.
I turn specifically to some of Lord Colville's recommendations. I should like to put two points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will have noticed that Lord Colville suggests that in the case of the extension of intention orders three new criteria should be adopted. They are the checking of an alibi, the time that is needed for the evaluation of documents which are once translated and the investigations arising from them, and where time is needed for consultation with other security services, sometimes across time zones and requiring translation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office who is to reply to the debate will be able to say that Lord Colville's recommendations find favour with Ministers because, to my mind, they make good sense.
Lord Colville has discovered—I did not know this—that those of our ports that are not designated act, in effect, as a loophole which the Act does not cover. On page 31 of his report, Lord Colville states that two practical results should be noted from the absence of certain ports from designation. He states at 5.5.2.1:
"These powers … do not appear to have been extended to deal with international terrorism, so long at least as the terrorists choose to come through a non-designated port." Surely that is absurd. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with that point.
Lord Colville further states at 5.5.2.2:
"Non-commercial shipping and small boats in Great Britain are not covered by the legislation at all."
Mr. Leighton: We all know that the hon. Gentleman has a special relationship with the police. However, is it right that he should monopolise the time for a very short debate when some of us would like to hear the speeches of other hon. Members who have something to say?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is a short debate which will end at 11.45. The Front Bench Members are anxious to speak. However, the hon. Gentleman is not out of order.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude shortly. However, I was unfortunately detained on three occasions, twice by the hon. Member for Ladywood.
I ask my right hon. Friend if he will deal with Lord Colville's recommendations on the ports.
I should like to conclude with the point on which my right hon. Friend ended. The Labour party ought not again to vote against this extension of the legislation. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) devises a new reason every year, and the one that he devised tonight was surely the weakest yet. He

277
knows that there is a problem and that if he were in office—I do not think that he will be—he would need to deal with it. What he is doing tonight, as he has done before, is to lead the Labour party into a vote that he knows in his heart is wrong. I ask him to change his mind.
11.12 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I intervene briefly only to underline one of the points in the Colville report that has already been mentioned. Lord Colville's fortunes have been mixed in the debate. It is remarkable what can happen to a former Under-Secretary of State in his years out of office. He made a fair observation towards the end of his report, which has already been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and which I should like to read again to the House. He stated:
"It does appear strange that the main measure which is designed to give powers against international terrorism should be … completely entangled with the Northern Irish problem, from which the legislation grew."
Consequently, he believed that Her Majesty's Government might like to start again.
Certain remarks that fell from the Home Secretary suggested that his mind, in looking forward to a possible enactment two years ahead, was malleable on that topic. It is because of the entanglement with the affairs of Northern Ireland and with the particular circumstances of 1974 that we have, in this Act, that most regrettable element described as "internal exile".
The provision for exclusion from Great Britain was always viewed askance by opinion in Northern Ireland, which regarded it as an affront that this artificial boundary should be drawn across the United Kingdom. That was only partially allayed by the introduction into the Act of a virtually meaningless reciprocity which prevented entry into Northern Ireland from Great Britain; but the offence remains.
The inherent objectionableness of a power to exclude from one part of the United Kingdom into another is undiminished, but the evidence for utility continues to diminish. I hope that we shall see the end of it, certainly no later than the new edition of this Act, and preferably when we come to consider renewal in a year's time. An indication of that indeed came from the Home Secretary. There is no reason why we should perpetuate this division of the United Kingdom into mutual exclusion zones. We probably should never have done this in 1974. It was probably based on misconception and the hysterical state of opinion that existed at the time. The power is no longer welcome, certainly not in Northern Ireland.
11.15 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) along the line that he has pursued with conviction and persuasiveness on many occasions.
The disgust of anybody in the House or the country for anything that even smacks of arbitrariness does not need to be stated. It is obvious on first blush that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 does so smack. But in an age where the horror of international terrorism is everywhere so rife and the rule of law in its pure form is not always adequate to protect citizens, it is ridiculous to suppose that no
278
further steps should be taken, beyond the pure form of the rule of law, to provide a defence. Yet Opposition Members do so pretend.
Opposition Members are in danger of being exposed as caring more for the civil liberties of someone who is a known associate of terrorists and most likely to be a foreigner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—than for the safety of British people. They are not only soft about terrorism but uncaring about terrorism. That is the impression that Opposition Members make and since that will do the Conservative party no harm at the hustings I do not share the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that Oppostion Members should change their tack.
It beggars belief that grown hon. Ladies and Gentlemen should come to the House and say, "If it becomes known after someone has gained entry to this country that he is a terrorist associate, if not a known terrorist, and there is some evidence, but not sufficient evidence to arraign him before a court of law, the police should have no power to detain or exclude him until and unless sufficient evidence becomes available." By the time the evidence becomes available it may well be too late.
Ms. Clare Short: That is not conducive to the public good. Has not the hon. and learned Gentleman heard about that?
Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Lady, who has not stopped talking from the start of the debate, would he one of the first to come to the House if ever there were a terrorist act in her city again, such as we experienced in the 1970s, whoever was responsible for it. Terrorists must be laughing their heads off.
The only reasonable objection one can have to the legislation is that it is not sufficiently restrictive. It should apply to anyone who boasts an affiliation with a known terrorist organisation, whether or not they have hitherto been convicted and whether or not there is any evidence against them. It should apply to stop PLO representatives staying in Britain and establishing their offices in Kensington. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] But I suppose we would upset the United Nations if we took such a sensible step.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lawrence: I shall be brief and Opposition Members have asked for an opportunity to speak, so I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I continue.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, "Every hon. Member loathes terrorism." Yes, of course we do. However, it is easy just to mouth such a phrase. In this case, action is far more convincing than mere weasel words. The right hon. Member said in a sneering manner that only 5 per cent. of those who have been detained and excluded have been followed up with prosecutions or convictions elsewhere. Would even that 5 per cent. have been caught if they had not first been detained and excluded here and then arrested when they arrived back in Northern Ireland or wherever?
Not only are the Opposition not to be trusted with the nation's defences, not only can they not be trusted with the nation's secrets, but they are not to be trusted to protect this nation against terrorism. Their words are disgraceful.
11.20 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: On page 36 of his report, Viscount Colville comments that the provision with which we are concerned tonight
"creates martyrs and tends to cause misplaced sympathy for people who on any rational view have committed terrible crimes."
Right though that comment is, I wish that I could regard the issues that we are discusing tonight in terms as black and white and clear as Labour Members purport to see them.
We have a terribly difficult balance to draw here between the civil liberties of people in this country—civil liberties that I noticed practically every Labour Member refused to support last Friday afternoon when we had a vote on whether the European convention on human rights should be incorporated into our domestic law—and, on the other hand, the very important consideration of the protection of the public.
Of course we are all revolted by terrorism and the fact that terrorists still abound. Most of us, at least, abhor too any intrusion on civil liberties which extends as deep as is summarised by Viscount Colville in the small section of his report from which I quoted a few moments ago.
On balance I am persuaded tonight to advise my hon. Friends to support the Government on this occassion. I am persuaded partly by the fact that Viscount Colville's very objective report appears to be based on the most extensive consultations yet in comparison with the other reports which have been considered by the House on this difficult subject. Although in the end this is not a matter for me, but for the Government, I want to dwell a moment on a comment made by the Opposition. They say that Viscount Colville's consultations were inadequate. In response to that, page 2 of the report shows that even though Viscount Colville may not have gone directly to certain interested people, they were given every opportunity through advertisements and other appeals to go to him.
I want to consider three substantive points very briefly. First, I want to look at the detention powers. We must be realistic and share with Viscount Colville the view that it is extremely difficult for the police to provide sustained evidence of conspiracy or attempt. Therefore, at present, the case against the detention powers has not been made.
Secondly, I turn to exclusion orders. We must recall the strong words of Sir Cyril Philips last year against the continuation of exclusion orders. This year Viscount Colville said in relation to the removal of exclusion orders:
"positive steps could perhaps be taken to prepare for this in 1988."
Lord Colville recognised that the tide of protest now outweighs the usefulness of the exclusion orders.
I too hope that by next year or, at the very latest, by 1988, the Home Secretary of the day will come to the House and show that the Government regard the continuation of the exclusion orders as unnecessary.
At the end of his report, Viscount Colville dealt with what he called the broader considerations. Every year, as we approach and then hear this debate, we see that legislation is divisive philosophically, between the Irish and between the Northern Irish and the rest of the British community, creates martyrs, and unnecessarily alienates people. It is not helpful that we have to deal with the Northern Ireland situation and the international terrorist
280
situation as though they were all one, both in quality and quantity. I urge the Home Secretary to take the point urged by Viscount Colville, and start again, soon.
11.25 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Two years ago my party leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), said:
"The man who conducted We review did not consult. nor did he invite consultation, with the responsible organisations which represent the Irish community and which are at the receiving end of this legislation."—[Official Report, 21 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1316.]
My hon. Friend was referring to Sir Cyril Philips. The same could be said of Viscount Colville this year, and references to consultation should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I am glad that this debate is taking place. One of my quarrels with the order is that it substitutes one year for the six months' debate. If here is a room with an odour, and there is concern about that odour, the proper thing to do is open the window as often as possible; to open it to scrutiny, examination and to whatever fresh thinking can come in.
The previous debates have had one repetitious factor, but that is essential when we are dealing with legislation that derogates so much from high standards of legal practice. The key point is that, somewhere along the line, somebody has to break the vicious circle between terrorism and repressive legislation. Who will break it? We can be sure that, in Irish terms, it will not be the Provisional IRA, the IRA, the UDA or the UDF. The onus rests on the House to ensure that the highest standards are adhered to and the derogations, whatever they be—I accept that they must happen in certain circumstances—are of the very slightest. The onus rests on the House and the Government to make an act of faith by at least trying to temper the provisions of the Act, especially those concerning exclusion orders. I am disappointed that there has been no such attempt.
At the moment there is a small effort—it is not enough, but at least it is a start— to deal w ith the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act with public order, with the police complaints procedure and with the use of the supergrass system, so why not the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act? I would have thought that if there had been movement on the exclusion orders, on the basis of the suggestion made by Sir Cyril Philips, there would be hope that there was a hint of a rethink and the beginning of an attempt to break out of this vicious circle. Unless that circle is broken by the Government and the House, it will not be broken by those involved in terrorism.
There are those who poured scorn on the view that the aim of the terrorist is not to create repressive legislation, but that is their aim, because that creates the climate in which they can recruit people and get active and covert support, and also resentment and alienation, which allows them to continue in their evil ways. I refer especially to the words of Mr. Daniel Morrison, of the Provisional Sinn Fein, after the atrocious attack in Brighton, when he said that it was the aim of the IRA to create repression. We remember the lengths to which they went after that atrocity to try to ensure that internment was reintroduced, because that is their most potent weapon. We play into the hands of the terrorists, be they of Northern Ireland or

281
international, when we provide them with a means of creating a reaction towards law and the process of justice and towards those who are charged with enforcing the law.
Finally, I refer to exclusion orders and detention. The Secretary of State said that nine people had been excluded during the past year. How many of those nine people were questioned by the police in Northern Ireland before they came to England, Scotland or Wales? That question is crucial. Subsequently, after their exclusion, how many of them were questioned and charged? The Secretary of State said specifically that they were excluded because of their involvement in terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland. If there was sufficient proof of their involvement before they came here and after they were returned to Northern Ireland, surely there must be some record of charges having been brought.
I regard certain sections of the Act as an anachronism that is adding to the problems that have been created in the wake of terrorism. It could well follow the example shown with, and be a very small step in relation to, the Emergency Provisions Act and the other factors in relation to Northern Ireland. It would at least be a signpost of hope. Unfortunately, we have received a very defensive reply from the Government. We have to live with this for another year, during which we may be sure that the people who wish to promote terrorism and violence will use that defensiveness for their own purposes.
11.33 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: I was alarmed by one sentence that the Home Secretary used. among many, in which he implied that the situation was of such a nature that the Act was possibly with us for ever more. I think that is what he said really. It is often said by those who defend the Prevention of Terrorism Act—and I am one of those who have been against it from its inception—that those who oppose the Act are giving support to the terrorists. I was sad to hear the implication in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), which was delivered in rather more immoderate language than he normally uses. Usually people who use such language are typical of those who prevented the operation ot democracy in Ireland for hundreds of years, and especially during the last 50 years in Northern Ireland. Many of them wish to return to the old Stormont. They are acting as though nothing has changed, but things have changed and we can never go back.
Opposition to the emergency legislation is now massive and is growing. No matter what happens on the Conservative Benches, that is the reality. The British people are wishing more and more, and in bigger numbers, to be rid of the whole mess of Northern Ireland.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Daily Express poll underlined that, because 61 per cent. were for immediate withdrawal. Many of us would never agree with that, but it is a guide and a backcloth to what is happening.
Some of us have opposed this legislation from the beginning because it was born of a desperation—which is alway a bad adviser—which swept the country after the Birmingham pub bombings. The last word has not been said about those bombings and who did them. The legislation demanded victims and the nearest were seized. It has corrupted our justice and our courts. It has curtailed
282
civil liberties throughout the country and continues to do so. It has solved nothing. It has widened and deepened the problem. We should not once again be renewing this emergency legislation; we should be getting rid of it for good. It is not the right legislation to deal with the problems with which it fails to grapple, no matter what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who speaks for the police, constantly says.
Experience over the last decade has shown that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is not a necessary and acceptable response to political violence, but one of the chief causes of continued violence. Denial of civil liberties and rights and the implementation of emergency powers feed the conflict from which the terrorism emerges. The Acts of 1974 and 1976 brought to Great Britain the emergency legislation under which Northern Ireland has had to be governed for the last 50 years, when the real answer is democracy in Northern Ireland, which the Conservative party was never willing to give. That spawned the terrorism, and while Northern Ireland is in the grip of those people, terrorism will continue. The border has to go and the people of Ireland have to be united. As long as the border is there, so long will the struggle go on.
11.36 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: The opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should have convinced the Government that they should think again about this legislation. Even if they do not, I hope that the Home Secretary will note that, after I have been saying for some years that exclusion orders were a form of internal exile, Viscount Colville has confirmed that view. To some extent, the Home Secretary was right the argument is beginning to shift. But where he is wrong is that it is shifting in our direction.
Lord Colville makes the other important point that there is a need to start again. We need to understand the force of that argument. In paragraph 2.25 on page 6 he says that
"only about 3 per cent. detained are subsequently charged".
The argument is then used to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the legislation. I have not argued that the Act is ineffective in that respect. What I have argued is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), that it is counter-productive.
One of the things that makes the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) so obnoxious in his interventions is that at best one can say that he does not understand the argument or, if he does understand it he is trying to take unto himself the ability to represent the brave people who stand out against terror. It is not like that. The argument is clearly whether the Act is not just offensive to civil liberties—nearly everybody agrees with that, although one or two Government Back Benchers were heckling on that a few moments ago, so perhaps they do not—but also counter-productive.
Mr. Hurd: It saves lives.
Mr. Soley: The Home Secretary keeps saying that it saves lives, but let me put this back to him. I accept that one cannot prove such a negative, but I ask him to accept the other side of the argument, that if many people related to and friends of the 95 per cent. who are wrongly detained

283
feel so alienated from the system that they no longer co-operate by giving evidence to the security forces, we are undermining the work of the security forces. If a small percentage of them are even more alienated to the point that they give support to the paramilitary organisations, we are responsible for helping the recruitment of those organisations. That applies as much to the Unionists as to the Republicans, although the Prevention of Terrorism Act affects Republicans more.
What Conservative Members have to understand is that increasingly and for many years the recruitment ability of the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland has been very high. Things like the Prevention of Terrorism Act are part of the propaganda that is used in recruitment. I ask them at least to understand that argument even if they do not agree with it. Lord Colville does not address that part of the argument.
The other difficult part of the argument is that the Government and Lord Colville concede that this is not properly called a Prevention of Terrorism Act. It should be called a Collection of Information Act, because that is what it is. Indeed Lord Colville says in paragraph 7.3:
"There is no denying that a police officer who stops someone for examination has often little but instinct to prompt him. One senior officer told me that his force stops people to see if they are terrorists; if this is not clear and there is no direct evidence, they are content to collect information. To detain a person under section 12 merely in order to collect information would clearly be an abuse of the section, which requires reasonable grounds for suspicion of terrorist involvement."
He concludes that paragraph by saying:
"Parliament may well wish to consider that line"—
the line between collecting intelligence and identifying terrorism—
"and ensure that powers are carefully phrased."
If we are to have a measure of this nature, let us be clear about it and call it a Collection of Information Act. Let us be clear about the use of that power because at least we shall then recognise, as Lord Colville has recognised, that the other part of the Act is a form of internal exile. Then we can debate the facts and not the fantasies.
11.42 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): It is a great pity that Labour Members intend to vote against the order. We should all be standing together against the threat of terrorism, and I begin my remarks by reminding the House that it was only in 1983 that Labour Members for the first time voted against the prevention of terrorism legislation. There was no sense at that time in their change of front, because the terrorist threat had in no way abated. Nothing had changed at that time except the Labour party. It was one of the first retreats by Labour Members into irresponsibility, the beginning of a decline that has taken them to one-sided disarmament and a completely frivolous approach to national security.
I shall deal first with the question of detention. Opposition Members usually argue that the detention powers are unnecessary because the vast majority of detainees are not charged with any offence, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was up to that tonight. Last year he said—and he said much the same tonight—that 95 per cent. of those detained under this legislation had been completely
284
innocent of anything. My noble Friend Lord Colville was over-generous when he described that as a simplistic approach. I would describe it as sheer and utter nonsense.
The purpose of the powers is to prevent the commission of offences and to deprive people of the chance of letting off bombs. Information is sometimes obtained showing the commission of offences and in quite a high proportion of cases charges follow. But in other cases the information obtained may be too sensitive to be revealed in court or no evidence is obtained which would be admissible in court, but there is clear information to the effect that the person is bent on terrorist activities.
My right hon. Friend said he had taken careful note of Lord Colville's argument that it would be better to have more vigorous scrutiny at the ports than retain the power to exclude. But is vigorous scrutiny at the ports a substitute? It is a question not just of identifying known terrorists but of what to do with a known terrorist when he has been identified. Exclusion, again, is a preventive measure. It is a power used with great discretion, but it has still been found necessary to use it on seven occasions in 1985 and on nine occasions in 1986, and my right lion. Friend is not as yet convinced that it is a power which can be abandoned without subjecting the public to increased risk.
When dealing with the issue of international terrorists the right hon. Member for Gorton was completely up the pole, not for the first time, especially when dealing with the question of the Abu Nidal group. He did not seem to grasp the fact that they were admitted and information was then received which led to their detention. They could certainly not have been detained under Immigration Act powers except for the purpose of removing them from the country. They could not have been detained under Immigration Act powers in order to be questioned about the possibility of the commission of criminal offences.
Regarding the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), there is an overlap between Immigration Act powers to designate ports and the powers under this Act, and we are not sure that there is an operational need for—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)
The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 91.

Division No. 88]

[11.45 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Alexander, Richard

Dover, Den

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Durant, Tony

Ancram, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baldry, Tony

Forth, Eric

Batiste, Spencer

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Beith, A. J.

Franks, Cecil

Benyon, William

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Bruce, Malcolm

Gale, Roger

Budgen, Nick

Galley, Roy

Burt, Alistair

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Butcher, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Gow, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gregory, Conal

Cartwright, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Colvin, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Cope, John

Ground, Patrick

Corrie, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Couchman, James

Hanley, Jeremy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hargreaves, Kenneth

285

Harris, David

Pollock, Alexander

Harvey, Robert

Porter, Barry

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Portillo, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Powell, William (Corby)

Hayes, J.

Powley, John

Hayward, Robert

Proctor, K. Harvey

Heddle, John

Raffan, Keith

Hickmet, Richard

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hind, Kenneth

Rathbone, Tim

Hirst, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Holt, Richard

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion

Howard, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Ryder, Richard

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Jackson, Robert

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jessel, Toby

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Kennedy, Charles

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kirkwood, Archy

Silvester, Fred

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sims, Roger

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knowles, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Speed, Keith

Lawler, Geoffrey

Speller, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Spencer, Derek

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Squire, Robin

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lester, Jim

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lightbown, David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Stern, Michael

Livsey, Richard

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lyell, Nicholas

Stokes, John

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Macfarlane, Neil

Taylor, John (Solihull)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Terlezki, Stefan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Madel, David

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Major, John

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Malone, Gerald

Thornton, Malcolm

Maples, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marlow, Antony

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Trotter, Neville

Mather, Sir Carol

Twinn, Dr Ian

Maude, Hon Francis

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Wall, Sir Patrick

Merchant, Piers

Wallace, James

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Waller, Gary

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Watts, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wheeler, John

Moore, Rt Hon John

Wiggin, Jerry

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Wilkinson, John

Murphy, Christopher

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Neale, Gerrard

Winterton, Nicholas

Needham, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Nelson, Anthony

Wood, Timothy

Neubert, Michael

Woodcock, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Norris, Steven

Yeo, Tim

Oppenheim, Phillip

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Mr. Peter LLoyd.

286

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Home Robertson, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

Ashton, Joe

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Barron, Kevin

Lamond, James

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Leighton, Ronald

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Bermingham, Gerald

Loyden, Edward

Blair, Anthony

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Boyes, Roland

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

McNamara, Kevin

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Madden, Max

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

Mallon, Seamus

Caborn, Richard

Marek, Dr John

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Martin, Michael

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Maxton, John

Clarke, Thomas

Maynard, Miss Joan

Clay, Robert

Michie, William

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Nellist, David

Cohen, Harry

O'Brien, William

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

O'Neill, Martin

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Parry, Robert

Corbett, Robin

Patchett, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Pike, Peter

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dalyell, Tarn

Redmond, Martin

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

Richardson, Ms Jo

Dixon, Donald

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Dormand, Jack

Rowlands, Ted

Dubs, Alfred

Sheerman, Barry

Duffy, A. E. P.

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Eadie, Alex

Skinner, Dennis

Eastham, Ken

Soley, Clive

Fatchett, Derek

Spearing, Nigel

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Stott, Roger

Fisher, Mark

Strang, Gavin

Flannery, Martin

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Foster, Derek

Wareing, Robert

Foulkes, George

Welsh, Michael

Godman, Dr Norman

Winnick, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gould, Bryan

Tellers for the Noes:

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Mr. Chris Smith and

Haynes, Frank

Mr. John McWilliam.

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

Prevention of Terrorism

  AIDS (CONTROL) Etc. BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the AIDS
  (Control) Etc. Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment
  out of money by Parliament of any increase attributable to
  that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS BILL
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Robert
  N. Wareing and Mr. Clement Freud be members of the Select
  Committee on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Planning Decisions (Northern Ireland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
11.57 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I would not normally trouble the House, especially at this time of night, with a detailed constituency case of the apparent failure of planning control. Nor would I take up the time of the Minister and his advisers in so doing if I did not believe that the circumstances of the case were symptomatic of something which is faulty in the system of planning control in Northern Ireland that threatens to deprive it of public confidence and, in some cases, to create a public scandal. However, I must first lay before the House, as briefly as I can, the events in the case to which I wish to draw attention. I shall put them in chronological order.
There is a building plot in a development known as Moyra drive, Saintfield, in my constituency. On 18 August, an application was received for planning permission to erect upon that plot, which is situated between two existing houses, a two-storey house. That was considered in the planning department, and on 20 October, in the normal course, the district council was consulted by the department with a recommendation that the application should he refused. The district council agreed with that recommendation.
Three days later, on 23 October, an amended application was received, and renewed consideration was given to it. As a result of that, on 17 November the district council was again consulted, again with a recommendation to refuse the permission, and again the district council was found to be in agreement with that recommendation.
Meanwhile, however, on 6 November work had begun on the site with a view to the erection of the house concerned. On 14 November, three days before the second consultation of the district council, a distinct warning was issued by the department to the developer. It is perhaps worth quoting the terms in the words of the divisional planning officer:
"The applicant was warned on 14 November 1986 that the commencement of development without the benefit of planning permission constitutes a breach of planning control."
In spite of all that, the work continued steadily, and on 8 January I was written to again. The wording of the letter from the divisional planning officer is significant, and is worth putting on the record. He said:
"You will appreciate that the Department does not normally proceed to enforcement action pending the outcome of a planning application.
However, the applicant has already been advised that the development had started on site without the benefit of planning permission. At the same time an assurance was sought that the development would cease pending the outcome of the planning application. In addition the applicant was advised that failure to comply with this request may result in enforcement proceedings."
The last that is known of the matter is that, if the house is not fully complete, it has nearly reached completion.
That course of events must naturally arouse our anxiety. It is bound to cause local and more widespread offence, since it implies that the administration and the law make it possible for planning control to be openly flouted. Here is a development for which planning permission was sought, and for which planning permission was not
288
forthcoming, but which nevertheless was put in hand and carried through to completion. So far as I am aware, no enforcement action has been taken.
There is one result of this on public opinion and there is one result on events in the Province. The result on public opinion is that it is generally concluded that planning control will not be made to stick — if a developer is sufficiently determined to go ahead in breach of or in the absence of planning control, he stands a good chance of getting away with it. Whatever steps are properly taken by the public—through their elected representatives on the district council and through their representatives in the House and by direct representations to the department—nothing will happen, but the development will be carried on. No doubt, in due course, some way .will be found of sanctioning, retrospectively, what has happened. That is the effect on public opinion.
It is serious that there should be the consequent loss, which certainly exists, of confidence in the planning process. One loss of confidence breeds another. It means that everyone who is aggrieved by a planning decision will be tempted to take the law into his own hands. It will mean that there will be a general belief that there may be planning laws, area plans and the rest of the contraption but, in the end, a developer will get away with it if he defies the planning law. It is, of course, an incitement precisely to that kind of defiance of the law which we have seen in this case — a "defiance of planning control", as the developer in this case was candidly informed he was committing by the department on more than one occasion.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept that there must be something wrong if a course of events can happen such as that which I have placed before the House and of which I think the hon. Gentleman is already aware. It may be that the failure is administrative. It may be that a different decision should have been taken or that a planning refusal should have issued at an earlier date, in which case the matter is capable of being remedied, not only in this instance but in other instances, by a more prompt reaction. It may be, however, that there is some fault in the powers which are available to the planning authority if such a blatant defiance occurs in the absence of planning control in the face of a department which is minded to refuse planning permission and which is supported in that intention by the relevant district council.
I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State will take the opportunity which this short debate affords not so much to clear up what happened in this case—although it will need to be cleared up to the satisfaction of public opinion in the immediate area-but to ensure that the planning process is fortified in the Province, both in practice and in the minds of the public.
12.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I thank the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for giving me advance notice of the proposition that he was bringing forward tonight. I will, of course, answer the points that he made as best I can in the particular and in the general.
On the matter of Moyra drive, Saintfield, the original application of 18 August 1986 to which the right hon. Member for South Down referred was to put a two-storey house on a piece of land which on the original plan had been designated as a play area. The application was not to put the house on the road that went through the estate

289
where the house is now being built. Because it was behind the existing houses and on the play area, the Department felt that the application should be turned down; it consulted the district council and the application was turned down.
The developer then came back and moved the application for the house to be sited between two existing houses, more in line with the existing buildings. At first, the view of the Department was that that application should also be refused. However on reflection, and once the Department had discussed the matter with the road engineers, it was felt that the application would have to be granted.
Any developer can put in an amendment to his original plans or a re-amendment, and he frequently does. That is the position and it happens in Northern Ireland and all over the United Kingdom. Hon. Members are not always greatly enamoured of the practice when it happens within their constituencies. In this particular case, the Department's preliminary view is that on the second application there are no planning grounds for refusing the application. We have consulted the district council on the basis of this latest opinion and it has deferred consideration of the application at its meeting and sought a site meeting. As a result of that decision by the district council on 4 February of this year the Department served an enforcement notice and a stop notice on the developer requiring him to halt work. The divisional planning officer did not begin formal enforcement proceedings earlier because the Department had been moving through what I accept is a tortuous process, towards approving the application.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Department sought the co-operation of the builder and asked him to cease the building while the planning application was considered. That request was ignored. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the building being three quarters of the way up, because I have looked at the photographs of it today. However, the work has now been stopped. I will, of course, keep the right hon. Gentleman informed about what happens in future developments on that site.
I now turn from the particular to the general. Stressing the point about the rights of applicants to bring forward different planning applications to change existing permissions that they have received, I know that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed concern to me that the Department on occasion may fail to take those matters into consideration because of the effects of outside bodies on the Department's proposals.
I have discussed that matter most fully with my officials to see if there was any truth in that suggestion. There is none. The Department must look at the merits of each application according to existing planning policy. The Department need have no reason or fear about going beyond or outside that. Although I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that if builders go out and start building without planning permission and the Department fails to act it inevitably gives the impression to the public that all is not well with the planning procedure.
I have turned over the papers and correspondence that the right hon. Gentleman had with some of my predecessors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), about the
290
Department's policy on enforcement against unathorised development. At that time he questioned article 19 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, empowers the Department to consider applications for planning permission for buildings or works constructed or in the process of construction before the date of an application. Article 19 allows applicants to receive authorisation for unathorised development where an individual seeking to sell a property could find himself in a position of real hardship. The tenet behind that comes from the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 which says that development without planning permission is not in itself an offence. That is primarily because in some cases there can be real difficulty in deciding whether planning permission should have been applied for in the first place.
I accept that if permissions after the event become the order of the day then, of course, the planning system will fall into disrepute. Our experience is that the vast majority of developers seek permission before starting work. Article 19 is there as a fallback power which is needed to avoid some planning irregularities where development is acceptable. It is not a power that is used simply to avoid enforcement action where such action is clearly necessary.
On the question of numbers, in 1986 some 20,000 applicants in Northern Ireland submitted themselves to the existing system and the Department found itself serving 34 enforcement notices and eight stop notices. There are, of course, many additional cases of unauthorised development and they are resolved without recourse to formal action. Very often the most effective way of dealing with the problem is where an authorised developer can be persuaded by the divisional planning officer without formal action, to end his breach of control.
I repeat that I recognise the disquiet that raises when builders and others commence development without applying for planning permission or even awaiting the outcome of planning applications. The Department does not condone that action. It is certainly unacceptable that some individuals should seek to avoid the procedures which as I have said most developers and most applicants submit to. Further, such action, as the right hon. Gentleman said, creates the perception that the Department is precluded from an objective view of the merits of the case when it consents to the building after the event. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that perception is not correct. The developer who jumps the gun does not receive any advantage and in many cases he has to undo what he has put up in an unauthorised way.
For example, in Islandmagee in county Antrim recently a developer started constructing a house and garage. He was asked by the Department to stop work but submitted a planning application instead and continued work on the house and garage. Enforcement and stop notices were served and planning permission was refused. Development ceased and eventually, following a number of court cases, the Department ensured that the development was removed.
In another case, with which I am familiar because political pressure was brought on the issue, a 15 ft high wall — an extremely unpleasant looking wall — was erected along the coast at Portstewart in county Londonderry without permission. Even though a planning application was submitted, the Department served a stop notice and an enforcement notice requiring the demolition

291
of the wall. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that, when a planning application falls outside planning policy, the Department will take action.
In consideration of the need or otherwise for enforcement action, the Department adheres to the view that the developer should gain no advantage or suffer no penalty by virtue of the fact that development commenced without the benefit of planning permission. That view is supported by the Planning Appeals Commission in its consideration of appeals against enforcement notices, and it applies equally throughout the United Kingdom.
To summarise the general position, we have a policy of considering enforcement action when development is started without permission. Developers who do not follow the rules gain no advantage from doing so and retrospective applications are dealt with solely on their merits.
It might he that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with current planning policy throughout the United Kingdom, which presumes in favour of the applicant even when he retrospectively applies for permission. Any change would require an alteration to the existing United Kingdomwide planning policy going back over 40 years, which is not something that I am in a position to grant this evening.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the trouble that he has taken to establish and reflect upon the facts of the case. I think that he and the Department will wish to draw some practical deductions from this experience.
292
In the light of what the Minister has explained to the House, I think that it is regrettable that an enforcement and stop notice was not issued in November rather than in February. Had that been done, very likely the development would not have proceeded as it did in the following two months. What principally caused the public scandal was when it became known that the Department's original recommendation on the second application had been for a refusal, and that that had been concurred with by the district council.
If something is to come out of this individual case that is of more general application, it may be—I leave this with the Minister for reflection—that recourse to stop and enforcement notices should he taken at an earlier stage than, perhaps, has been happening in all instances.
Mr. Needham: The reason why the enforcement and stop notice was not issued in November was that, by that time, the Department felt that permission might be granted. Nevertheless, I very much take on board the right hon. Gentleman's points. In this case, the building was going ahead without permission, and it should not have done. As I said, we have now issued stop and enforcement notices. I shall certainly discuss with my officials the necessity that, in such cases, we should carefully consider whether, where appropriate, we should take action earlier to stop this happening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  State Security
  State Security
TRANSPORT
  A36 (Consultants Report)
  A36 (Consultants Report)
  Traffic Clubs
  Traffic Clubs
  Motorways (Lane Closures)
  Motorways (Lane Closures)
  Roads (Assessment Committee)
  Roads (Assessment Committee)
ENVIRONMENT
  Small Businesses (Tenure)
  Small Businesses (Tenure)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  Spectrum Arena
  Spectrum Arena
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Private Flats
  Private Flats
  Housing (Enveloping Schemes)
  Housing (Enveloping Schemes)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
PRIME MINISTER
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  USSR
  USSR
  Company Directors
  Company Directors
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Previous Administrations (Information)
  Previous Administrations (Information)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
EMPLOYMENT
  Jobcentres (Staffing)
  Jobcentres (Staffing)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Community Projects (Member's Correspondence)
  Community Projects (Member's Correspondence)
  Training
  Training
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Skynet
  Skynet
  EC (British Presidency)
  EC (British Presidency)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Designated Agencies (Power Transfer)
  Designated Agencies (Power Transfer)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Alternative Land Use
  Alternative Land Use
  Cider
  Cider
  Beer
  Beer
  Salmon Advisory Committee
  Salmon Advisory Committee
ENERGY
  Foreign Electricity Industries (Costs)
  Foreign Electricity Industries (Costs)
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Sizewell B Power Station
  Sizewell B Power Station
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
THE ARTS
  London and the Regions
  London and the Regions
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Sherman Theatre, Cardiff
  Sherman Theatre, Cardiff
  Public Library Service
  Public Library Service
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  North East London Polytechnic
  North East London Polytechnic
  Wheathampstead School
  Wheathampstead School
  Student Counsellors
  Student Counsellors
  Mathematics and Physics
  Mathematics and Physics
  School Closures
  School Closures
  School Accommodation
  School Accommodation
  Research
  Research
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Honduras
  Honduras
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Gas Leaks
  Gas Leaks
  Fire Brigades (Establishment)
  Fire Brigades (Establishment)
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
  Prison Officers' Houses
  Prison Officers' Houses
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Police (Traffic Duties)
  Police (Traffic Duties)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Levels
  Income Levels
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Cigarettes (Taxation)
  Cigarettes (Taxation)
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Incomes
  Incomes
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
DEFENSE
  50-tonne Cranes
  50-tonne Cranes
  Armoured Divisions (Tanks)
  Armoured Divisions (Tanks)
  Nuclear Defense
  Nuclear Defense
  Skynet
  Skynet
  Land Rovers
  Land Rovers
  Synetta Tanker
  Synetta Tanker
SCOTLAND
  Jurors' Citations
  Jurors' Citations
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Police Duties
  Police Duties
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Infertility
  Infertility
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
  Public Sector Colleges
  Public Sector Colleges
  Rate Relief
  Rate Relief
  Dunblane Bypass
  Dunblane Bypass
  Health Service (Consultants)
  Health Service (Consultants)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Preventive Medicine
  Preventive Medicine
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Deprived Urban Areas
  Deprived Urban Areas
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Cities (Hospital Provision)
  Cities (Hospital Provision)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped People
  Mentally Ill and Handicapped People
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Board and Lodging Regulations
  Board and Lodging Regulations
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  NHS-Private Sector (Co-operation)
  NHS-Private Sector (Co-operation)
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Chemical Weapons (Casualties)
  Chemical Weapons (Casualties)
  Battery-powered Wheelchairs
  Battery-powered Wheelchairs
  Computer Bed Bank Scheme
  Computer Bed Bank Scheme
  Health Authorities (Real Estate)
  Health Authorities (Real Estate)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Cottage Hospitals
  Cottage Hospitals
  Arthritics
  Arthritics
  Radiotherapy Unit (Southend General Hospital)
  Radiotherapy Unit (Southend General Hospital)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Funeral Directors (Advertising)
  Funeral Directors (Advertising)
  Basingstoke Hospital
  Basingstoke Hospital
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Inner London (National Health Service)
  Inner London (National Health Service)
  Sheltered Accommodation
  Sheltered Accommodation
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Condoms
  Condoms
  Social Security Budget
  Social Security Budget
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Family Planning Clinics
  Family Planning Clinics
  Infertility
  Infertility
  Bath Additions
  Bath Additions
  Elective Surgery
  Elective Surgery
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Climatic Variability
  Climatic Variability

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

Water Mains: Depth
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that water mains in the United Kingdom are at depths and in conditions which will protect them from the degrees of frost which are to be expected from time to time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): Yes, my Lords. Water mains in the United Kingdom are laid at depths which ensure that they do not freeze during extremes of low temperature. The water main which supplies my house in Somerset, for instance, is three feet deep.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reassuring reply. Does he agree that on average there is at least one cold spell per winter in this country; and must we expect floods and interrupted supplies as a result of burst water mains every time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There is at least one cold snap of varying severity each winter. The cold snap that we had last month was the most severe since the winter of 1962–63. The average rate of failure in the United Kingdom amounts to one burst per year for every four kilometres of main. It may interest the House to know that each burst costs £500 to repair, compared with a gross replacement cost of £200,000 for four kilometres of main.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the figure which the Minister has just given include the cost to those whose lives are disrupted by the burst water main, a cost which must be considerable? Is he aware that Government control on water authority borrowing is preventing them from making the needed investment in water main replacement? Research has shown that materials are now available which would not burst whatever the weather. Mains can now be laid in polyethylene. Can he say whether the Government have any plans to allow the water authorities to replace mains as necessary with that material?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if water authorities find it cost effective, which I suggest they probably will not from the figures I gave in answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell, they are at perfect liberty to use whatever materials they deem to be necessary. I should point out that the polyethylene pipes suffer from
510
problems at the joints. But that is not because of freezing per se; it is a result of the contraction and expansion of the ground around the water mains. This is likely to happen even if the water mains are laid deeper.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely the simple answer to this Question is no. It would be grossly uneconomic for us ever to have all our mains in a condition to resist every possible degree of frost and unexpected weather. We have to try to balance.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is what I was seeking to convey in the most polite of possible terms.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, how is it that Norway and Canada have much worse weather but do not seem to have our problems?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have never lived in or experienced the winter of Norway or Sweden—
Lord Mellish: Canada.
Lord Skelmersdale: I expect that the reason has something to do with the snow cover in those parts of the world, which would reduce the expansion and contraction of the soil.

Northern Ireland: Battalions' Tour of Duty
2.40 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the tour of duty of resident battalions in Northern Ireland has been extended and whether it is intended to extend it further.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the tour of duty for resident battalions in Northern Ireland has remained at about two years since 1981. There are no plans at present to increase the length of the tour.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, in view of the terms of service in Northern Ireland, would it not be desirable for the period of service to be reduced to what it was before 1981?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not necessarily convinced that that would be a good idea. It is sometimes better for battalions to have a set period in the Province, or in any other theatre for that matter, and two years fits in well with the other duties which they have to perform.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, last year two additional battalions were sent to Northern Ireland. It is proposed in March of this year to withdraw one. Although the organisation and deployment of forces in Northern Ireland in the past has deserved the highest praise for efficiency and effectiveness, is the noble Lord

511
aware that many commanders, both in the RUC and in the Army, think that a withdrawal at this time may be either unwise or perhaps even foolhardy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we naturally keep the level of forces available in Northern Ireland under very careful and continuous review. As the noble Lord will be aware, their role is to support the RUC and their strength is calculated for that purpose.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, are the other arms of the services doing their share in Northern Ireland? I refer to the Royal Armoured Corps, the Gunners, the Royal Corps of Transport; and why not the RAF Regiment? Are they all doing the onerous duties that fall on the British infantry? I should like to think that the position could be improved in that way.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, appropriate units take their turn to serve in Northern Ireland, including the Royal Air Force Regiment and, indeed, the Royal Marines.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the occasions that I have had the luck to go to Northern Ireland and speak to the soldiers stationed there or to speak to those about to go there, they all seemed very keen on the posting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am bound to agree with my noble friend. I have never ceased to be amazed at the dedication and enthusiasm of our forces in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, the Minister said that the figures are kept under continuous review. In view of the fact that a battalion is to be withdrawn, what factor has made that possible?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is right in what he said. We have not announced a specific date for the withdrawal of forces from Northern Ireland, but we are hoping to look again at the level later this year.

Northern Ireland: Battalions' Night Duty
2.44 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what average percentage of nights are spent on duty by personnel in the resident battalions in Northern Ireland.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, currently personnel in the resident battalions in Northern Ireland on average spend about 57 per cent. of nights away from their resident location. No figures are kept for nights spent actually on operations.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, is that not an excessively high figure? Does it not put an undue strain
512
on personnel? Further, if that is an average figure, does it not mean that some personnel are spending considerably more nights away than the average?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, it is an average figure, but my noble friend will be reassured to learn that recently the average has been reduced from 70 per cent.

Birmingham University: Traffic Engineers
2.45 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of a proposal to close down the faculty of transportation at the University of Birmingham, and if so how they would propose that an adequate supply of traffic engineers be maintained.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I understand that the University of Birmingham is committed to continue the department of transportation and highway engineering in its present form to 1988, when its future will be reviewed taking full account of external advice.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but it does not take us very far if it is only to 1988. Is he aware that this faculty produces the greatest number of trained traffic engineers of any university in the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that the Government's excellent record in highway building is sometimes marred by poor traffic management, and that we take the wooden spoon for road signs in this country? Does my noble friend agree that the Government should ensure that this faculty is continued in order to continue to produce the excellent traffic engineers that it now produces?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, it is important to have an adequate supply of traffic engineers. In that respect my information is that the Department of Transport is unaware of any present deficiency in numbers. However, the University of Birmingham is in touch with the principal users of the services of its own department of transportation and highway engineering and will take all those views into account.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the University of Birmingham reckons that it will be £2 million in the red without drastic cut-backs such as those? Is he further aware that many departments are in great difficulty with the present level of university grants? For example, the department of theology finds itself without a New Testament lecturer.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in November that the recurrent grant for the universities in the financial year 1987–88 will increase by £95 million beyond this year's level. That is an increase of 7 per cent.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that under the presiding genius of the late Sir Herbert Manzoni, the chief traffic engineer to the city of Birmingham, that city led the world in inner traffic management? Would it not be a thousand pities if the school in Birmingham University which was irradiated by his genius in years gone by were to pack up?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the university recognises its responsibility to local and national industry and has taken a number of welcome initiatives. Its current review forms part of the preparation of an academic plan for the whole university.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I warmly support the strong plea made by the noble Earl and ask the Minister how many similar faculties there are in the universities in Great Britain? Secondly, is it the case that the University Grants Committee has pressed for this closure as a result of pressure from Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I understand that there are 10 or 11 other university faculties or institutes of technology in the United Kingdom which also deal with transportation matters. As regards the second part of his supplementary question, the University Grants Committee is of course entirely independent and comes to its conclusions independent of government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must press the noble Earl to he more specific in his reply. How many other universities have faculties which produce traffic engineers in the same way as the University of Birmingham, with its incomparable record, is doing at present?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, my understanding is that there are 10 or 11 other faculties or departments in the United Kingdom. I think it is recognised, however, that the University of Birmingham is at the forefront of research in transport matters.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept from me that the department in Birmingham University is the only independent department of transportation and highway engineering? Is he aware of the tremendous research that the department carries out into accident analysis and the reason why accidents occur? Moreover, it is running courses at present which have export potential. They are for the developing countries, and were instigated and paid for to a great extent by grants from the Overseas Development Corporation. Is it not important that what has already been well established by this department should continue because in the main it will be cost-effective, saves accidents on the roads and avoids potential deaths?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I endorse very fully all the complimentary remarks that the noble Baroness has made in regard to the Department of Transportation and Highway Engineering at the
514
University of Birmingham; and I am sure that the University Grants Committee together with the university will take account of these considerations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that his words of praise for the Department of Transportation—namely, that it is in the forefront of these matters—will be received with great pleasure at the University of Birmingham? However, if that is the case, why is it under threat?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I do not accept that it is under threat. As I understand it, it is the intention of Birmingham University to review the position in 1988, but to do so as part of a rolling academic plan for the whole university.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is it not true that as this department only has until 1988 it means that from today until that time the poor professors and tutors will not know whether they have a very short or a very long future ahead of them? Is this not making it rather difficult for them and their students?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, while I appreciate the point that has been made by the noble Earl, I think that this is a matter for the University of Birmingham and the University Grants Committee to consider on their own.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House the circumstances which justify even the consideration of the proposal to close that faculty? What were the surrounding circumstances that justified its inclusion on the agenda at all?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, our information in this respect is relayed to us by the University Grants Committee and the University of Birmingham. It is therefore an internal decision.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us where the University Grants Committee obtains its money?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, my Lords; I shall be delighted to tell the noble Lord. As I think I said in an earlier reply, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in November that the recurrent grant for the universities in the financial year 1987–88 will increase by £95 million beyond this year's level; and that represents an increase of 7 per cent.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in his replies the noble Earl has referred only to the University Grants Committee and the University of Birmingham's review. Do the Government intend to lay down their own views on the necessity for this for transportation needs?
The Earl of Dundee: No, my Lords. I do not think that it is for the Government to interfere. Decisions about the future of individual departments are for the university itself to take. I am sure that the university, and the University Grants Committee in its national planning, will take account of the national need for traffic engineers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, because of the replies that have just been given some of us are now very confused. Is the University of Birmingham under threat or not?
The Earl of Dundee: No, my Lords.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer that is to be given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the planning implications of the Government's policy on the rural economy.
Social Security (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill
Brought from the Commons: read a first time, and to be printed.

Family Law Reform Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Parents not being married to have no effect in law on relationships]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 1, I think I must say from the Woolsack that if Amendment No. I were to be agreed I should not be able to call the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I hope that I shall not have to move my second and third amendments. As the noble and learned Lord has said, that will not be necessary if, by an extraordinary chance, my first amendment is carried.
Clause 1 (4) caused a great deal of difficulty to all of us at both Committee and Report stages. It was responsible for lengthy discussion on the meaning of the word "conception" and the precise moment at which human life starts, and raised considerations of the meaning of insemination, in vitro fertilisation and so on. After the Report stage I again took up the Bill to see whether there was a solution to the difficulties of the wording of subsection (4) and it came to me in a blinding flash that there was no need at all for the subsection and that I should follow the precept that I use when I am writing: "When in doubt, leave out". I shall now try to explain my reasoning to your Lordships.
Throughout this Bill when it refers to a person who used to be called illegitimate the words used are:
"a person whose father and mother were not married to each other at the time of his birth".
516
That phrase occurs again and again throughout this Bill—about 12 times I think. I can see the problem which arose. The definition,
"whose father and mother were not married … at the time of his birth"
would apply to a child whose father had died during the course of that child's gestation. Of course such a person should not be included in the definition. The only reason that subsection (4) is included in the Bill is so that if a child's father dies during that child's gestation it is considered as one whose father and mother were married to each other at the time of its birth.
When one looks at the Bill one finds that on every occasion that there is a reference to a child whose father and mother were not married at the time of his birth, the provisions cannot possibly apply if the father is dead because in every case (and every conceivable case that could appear in the future) the provisions involve the father and if he is dead they will not apply.
If your Lordships look at the start of Clause 4, you will see that it states:
"Where the father and mother of a child were not married to each other at the time of his birth, the court may …. order that he"-
the father—
"shall have all the parental rights and duties".
But if the father is dead there is no question of that.
It is the father's position, after the child's birth, that is considered every time that phrase is used or is likely to be used in future legislation. If the father is dead he is out of the picture. I think I need say no more. The easy way out of that dilemma is to leave out Clause 4.
The final matter I must mention is that subsection (4) as it exists, after its recent amendment, does not say what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack wanted it to say. It starts by referring to:
"the insemination resulting in his birth"
and then in paragraph (b) it states:
"where there was no such insemination, his conception".
We return to the question of conception. When in vitro fertilisation takes place—the noble and learned Lord has agreed that the Bill should cover in vitro fertilisation—the conception takes place in the hospital dish in vitro. There is no doubt that that is the moment of conception because that is when the ovum becomes a conceptus. Conception takes place in the hospital dish and the conceptus can then be deep frozen and may not be inserted into the mother's uterus for many years.
Under the present language, the period beginning with conception means the period beginning with the fertilisation in the hospital. There may be a period of 10 years between conception and birth. It cannot be the noble and learned Lord's intention that if the genetic parents of the child were married for any part of that ten-year period he should eventually be considered the legal—legitimate as we used to say—child of those parents. If we leave out the subsection, the whole controversy is avoided. I suggest that the subsection is otiose. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I would go rather further. I wrote to my noble and learned friend on 27th January suggesting that we did not need

517
subsections (2), (3) and (4), subsection (4) being the subject of this amendment. I have not had an answer to that letter, although subsequently I had an answer to a letter I wrote on 26th December. I thought that it was altogether too big a matter for a probing amendment on Third Reading. However, I should like to have some remarks on the record so that, if there is anything in the point, the Bill can be greatly improved and streamlined in another place.
Subsection (4) is infelicitous because it uses the word "insemination" to include normal intercourse. In contrast, it uses the word "conception" to mean any form of fertilisation other than in the mother's body. In other words, both terms are being used in a highly unusual sense. One can puzzle out what the draftsman was trying to do; namely, to see that in vitro fertilisation, which was not covered at the beginning, is now covered. On Report I said that he had done that, although in an odd way. If we can leave out subsection (4), so much the better.
Subsection (4) refers back to subsection (2). I think the draftsman is anxious that anything done by the Bill will not cast doubt on persons who have been legitimated under a statute or under a rule of law invoked by statute or regarded as legitimate or legitimated. Two cases were put. The first seemed to your Lordships to be an unlikely scenario. It was discovered, or so we are told, that an interval of 72 hours can take place between sexual intercourse and conception. I ventured to point out that a child who is horn three days late would unquestionably be regarded as being born in wedlock and so there is nothing in that point. I think that that was accepted by my noble and learned friend.
An even more unlikely scenario was painted. According to the scientists, there is a lapse of hours between sexual intercourse and conception. That is the minimum. The picture that was painted was of a man coming home having an isolated act of sexual intercourse with his wife and then dying. It was said that, after an inquest, that child would be deemed to be illegitimate. That seems pretty unlikely and far-fetched; but it is even more farfetched when one sees that it is invoked in order to save the legitimation under subsection (3). If one subtracts adoption in paragraph (c) and the legitimated person in paragraph (d), all one is left with is the person who is legitimated by being born in a void marriage where one or both of the parents believe the marriage to be valid.
That unlikely situation has to be added to the situation where the man comes back, has an isolated act of sexual intercourse, and dies. That would rule out the adoption or legitimation by the subsequent marriage of the parents. We are left with only one type of legitimation. That was the point that I put to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I do not expect an answer on the spot. I want to put on the record what I have suggested so that it can be considered in another place. We can do without not only subsection (4) but also subsections (2) and (3) as well, to the vast improvement of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, may I deal with the two speeches in reverse order? My noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches has written to me twice,
518
on 27th January and 5th February. Unless something has happened to my reply, he has had an answer to both in a single letter of three pages of foolscap. I note that he does not expect a reply from me now. I shall ask those advising me to consider very carefully what he has said and whether it is already covered by my three-foolscap-page reply. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take that as a promise, and I shall write him a further letter on the points that he has raised if they contain anything which is not in my previous reply. I can only apologise to the noble and learned Lord if it has not yet reached him.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said that we had all had a great deal of difficulty over this clause. I do not think that the difficulty was of my creation. The noble Lord says that the conception of Amendment No. 1 came to him in a blinding flash, but I think that it was perhaps more blinding than a flash. In fact the amendment is based upon a false premise. The false premise is that Clause 1(4) is otiose and unnecessary. His object is to omit it. When in doubt, says he, leave it out. But it is a false premise. Clause 1(4) is necessary. For that reason it should remain in the Bill.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 when read together define the status of legitimacy by reference to the time of a person's birth and whether or not a person's parents were married to each other at the time. Subsection (4) defines what is meant by the time of a person's birth. That time is specified to include any moment between either the act of insemination—whether natural insemination or artificial insemination—or, in the absence of any such act, the moment of conception, whether in vitro or by some other means outside the mother's body, and the moment of birth itself. Subsection (4) therefore ensures that a child whose father dies or whose parents divorce between such points in time is nevertheless born legitimate. That is the present law and it is important to preserve it. Without subsection (4) it would not do so. For that reason I ask the House not to accept Amendment No. 1.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am completely unconvinced by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said. I am quite aware that the purpose of subsection (4) is to change what is meant when there are references in the Bill to the time of a person's birth. But if we take the time of the person's birth as meaning quite simply the time at which he is actually born—I did not hear the noble and learned Lord's interjection; I nearly heard it—then there are no circumstances under which the outcome will be any different from what it will be if subsection (4) is omitted. I thought I had made it clear in my opening remarks, the meaning of which I do not seem to have been able to get across to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Clearly there is no point in pressing the amendment. I hope that what I have said may be considered before this Bill goes to another place and that on reflection it may be found that I am right and that the subsection can be left out. Although I do not intend to press the amendment, neither do I feel inclined to withdraw it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("resulting") and insert ("whether natural or artificial that resulted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in subsection (4)(a), which was inserted at an earlier stage, your Lordships will notice that the words used are:
"the insemination resulting in his birth".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has already pointed out that it is a most unusual use of the word "insemination". Insemination simply means the injection of semen into. As we all should know already, it means what quite often happens whenever any couple has full sexual intercourse: the man inseminates the woman. But it is virtually never used in that sense. I have not been able to find a single earlier occasion when it is described as "insemination" except where it is artificial insemination, when it is so described as "artificial insemination".
The only purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the paragraph in question means either natural insemination or artificial insemination. As soon as I saw this new paragraph (a),
"the insemination resulting in his birth",
I assumed that it meant artificial insemination. When "insemination" is used previously, without qualification, it is used carelessly to mean artificial insemination.
I am getting used to my amendments being turned down on most, but not quite all, occasions. However, I feel strongly that to insert the words, "whether natural or artificial", make it quite clear to anyone reading that passage in the Bill that it refers to both those forms. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have naturally taken advice about this second amendment. I am advised that it is unnecessary. I am convinced, and I am advised that on this occasion I am correct, that the word "insemination" in Clause 1(4) is apt to cover all cases in which fertilisation of the ovum takes place within the woman's body. Such insemination will of course most often be effected by an act of normal intercourse but it will also cover artificial insemination. For that reason the words of the amendment are unnecessary, and I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to follow his own precept: when in doubt leave it out.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to say anything further. Of course the words are unnecessary in that paragraph (a) makes perfect sense as it stands. But I feel that it is far clearer and better to insert these words. In view of the customary attitude towards my amendments taken by the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("his conception") and insert ("the insertion of a conceptus that so resulted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already referred to this to some extent when speaking to my first amendment but I have to do so again. Your
520
Lordships will see that in subsection 4(b) there is reference to,
"where there was no such insemination, his conception, and (in either case) ending with his birth".
I have already pointed out that when in vitro fertilisation takes place the conception occurs when ovum and spermatozoa are put together in vitro, in the dish.
I have pointed out that it may be as many as 10 or 20 years before the child that results from that conception is born. It is therefore clear that when the amendment was drafted at the Report stage it was drafted with the idea that in vitro fertilisation should be included. It cannot have been realised that there can be and frequently is a very long delay between conception and birth. If the woman's husband dies and she remarries, has two or three children by her second husband and then decides—and she may do so of her own volition—"I am now going to have another baby by my first husband from the concepti'"—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords the word, if it exists at all, is in the fourth declension.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I wonder whether it is. I assumed that the word conceptus was the past participle of the word concipio. Can the noble and learned Lord be learned enough to tell me about that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that may be so but it makes no difference whatever to what I said.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I think it does make a difference, because if it is the fourth declension it is a noun and the plural form is conceptus. However, if it is a masculine past participle of the Latin word concipio, meaning "I conceive", conceptus means a being who has been conceived and, as I have said, the plural form is "concepti".
However that may be, conceptus is the word used in the First Report of the Voluntary Licensing Authority for Human In Vitro Fertilisation. If your Lordships wish me to define it further, the ovum is put into the dish; it is then fertilised and from the moment that the cells begin to divide it becomes the conceptus or a pre-embryo. It is sometimes known as a zygote. That is then inserted into the woman as a pre-embryo. When the implantation in the womb is completed it becomes an embryo which develops into a foetus.
In order for this to have the effect that the Government and the noble and learned Lord want, we have to refer not to the moment of conception in subsection (4)(b) but to the moment when the conceptus, the pre-embryo or the zygote—whichever term one wants to use—is inserted into the uterus of the woman. The point which matters is the moment when the zygote or conceptus is inserted in the uterus. It is to bring that about that I have put down this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment shares the disadvantages of being both unnecessary and undesirable. Its defects are also shared by the coming amendment to Clause 28, also in the name of the noble Lord. It is quite clear that the reference to conception in Clause 1(4), in cases where there has

521
been no insemination, includes all methods of creating life outside a woman's body, whether in vitro or by some other means. If the parents are married at this time, the resulting child is to be legitimate under Clause 1. That is the present law and, as I have already explained, that is what the Bill seeks to preserve.
I assume that by the expression "conceptus" the noble Lord means "embryo". Why he does not exactly use that word is not yet apparent to me. I do not understand why he should have used an obscure synonym in a kind of Latin instead of the well-known English word which describes the same thing.
However, I take greater exception to the policy of the amendment than to the Latin. It would alter the ambit of the present status of legitimacy with which this Bill is not concerned and which the Law Commission did not consider in its reports. There has therefore been no consultation of any kind on this matter and it would be entirely premature to embark on any reform of the scope of the status of legitimacy in the way proposed by the noble Lord. This Bill is concerned only with the consequences for an illegitimate child which presently flow from the staus of legitimacy. This was the only matter investigated by the Law Commission in its two reports and therefore the only matter with which this Bill should be concerned. Therefore I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble and learned Lord has got it wrong. I hold in my hand the First Report of the Voluntary Licensing Authority for Human In Vitro Fertilisation. I think that he will probably agree that the authors of this report, which is a standard work on the subject, have more knowledge of in vitro fertilisation than either the noble and learned Lord or his advisers.
I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 3 of the report. It is headed "Guidelines":
"Some aspects of these guidelines are worth highlighting … (b) Terminology: Much thought and discussion was devoted to the appropriate term to be used for the early stages of cell division following fertilisation. This was important since 'embryo' is not the correct term for this stage in development, although it has been widely used. The cluster of cells that develops following fertilisation does not always form an embryo and when it does, only a small portion of the entire cluster is involved. The embryo forms about 14–16 days after fertilisation, and it is then clearly destined to become a fetus. To describe the entire initial cell cluster, members preferred the term 'pre-embryo', as it was hoped that this term would be more easily understood than the equally correct terms 'conceptus' or 'zygote' ".
When the noble and learned Lord referred to "embryo" as being synonymous with "conceptus", he was mistaken. I did not use the word in this amendment because I did not mean to refer to the embryo, which does not exist until 14 to 16 days after the conceptus is inserted.
Therefore, as the noble and learned Lord was completely wrong in his opposition to the amendment, I must point out once again that if the present wording stands, and if a woman's ova are fertilised and frozen and the husband dies and she remarries, then over the next 10 years she could have alternate babies by each of her two husbands: first by her dead husband and then by her present husband, who cannot stop her because she can do that of her own volition. If she does
522
that, then every child who is born will be considered to be the child of the mother and the genetic father. They will be legitimate children. Therefore those children in whose case impregnation takes place after their father's death will still be the legal children of that father. It is a nonsense and I do not intend to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears—
"father" means the biological father, that is to say, the man by the use of whose semen insemination took place either naturally or artificially, or conception took place by the embryo insertion that resulted in the birth of the child;
"mother" means the carrying mother, that is to say, the woman who begins to carry the child at the time of the insemination, or, as the case may be, embryo insertion that results in her carrying the child.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I put down this amendment because I think it is important in this legislation that we should know what is meant by "father" and by "mother" in view of modern developments for treating infertility.
The first case I would put is of artificial insemination by a donor, not the woman's husband but another man whose sperm is injected into her body, and a child is born. Who is the father? Most people would say it is not the husband; it is the man who donated the sperm. Then I would take the case of the mother with in vitro fertilisation; that is, another woman's egg or ovum is mixed with a man's sperm and injected into the mother's body. That is called embryo fertilisation. Who is the mother in such a case? Is it the woman who provided the egg or is it the mother who carried the child from the beginning to the end?
It is for that reason that I have suggested—and I feel it may well be right even in law without addition, but it ought to be said—that "father" means the biological father; that is to say, the man by the use of whose semen insemination took place, either naturally or artificially, or conception took place by the embryo insertion that resulted in the birth of the child. That is saying the father is the man whose semen gave the result of a child. The mother—this is more controversial—means the carrying mother; that is to say, the woman who begins to carry the child at the time of insemination or, as the case may be, embryo insertion that results in her carrying the child.
Let me give an illustration of the importance of those definitions. I go to Clause 4:
"Where the father and mother of a child were not married to each other at the time of his birth, the court may, on the application of the father, order that he shall have all the parental rights and duties with respect to the child".
Who is the father there referred to? Is it the donor, the man who provided the semen, or not? This must be cleared up.
To carry my argument further, I looked up the definitions in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. They gave no help. "Father" means one who has begotten a child, a male parent. "Mother" is a woman who has given birth to a child, a female parent. "Parent" is a person who has begotten or borne a child as a father or mother. So the dictionary gives no help.
In the Law Commission's first report it is said that the father is the donor of the semen. Paragraph 12.1 of the first report says:
"A child conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the mother with sperm provided by a third party donor (AID) is, as the law now stands, illegitimate; it is immaterial that the mother's husband has consented to the insemination. The status of the child is in law the same as that of a child conceived in adultery. Likewise the donor, not the mother's husband, is the legal father of an AID child".
In the Warnock Report (paragraph 4.9) it is said:
"In theory the husband of the woman who bears an AID child has no parental rights and duties in law with regard to the child; these in principle lie with the donor, who could be made liable to pay maintenance, and who could apply to a court for access or custody".
As to the mother, that is much more difficult. Is it the carrying mother in the case of surrogacy, or is it the commissioning mother who asks for the baby to be born and pays for it, or is it the biological mother who provided the egg?
All I suggest is that these matters should be cleared up in this statute. I believe the definitions which I have given are the correct definitions as they would be held to be by a court of law now, but I think it would be much better to set them out in this statute. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, I question what his amendment adds. He prefaces the amendment with the expression "unless the contrary intention appears". A contrary intention does appear in Clause 27, which deals with AID cases. Clause 27 deems the consenting husband of the mother to be the lawful father of the child produced by the process of artificial insemination by third party donor. In most of those cases the natural father will be an unknown donor.
Assuming that Clause 27 survives—I should remind your Lordships that it has survived two attacks in the course of this Bill's progress through your Lordships' House—the addition which is proposed in this amendment will not help. However, if Clause 27 were to go, and this amendment were allowed, as I understand it the effect would be that the poor child would be left, both practically and legally, fatherless. I submit that this amendment adds absolutely nothing.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient for the House if I came in here because your Lordships will see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I both came to the conclusion quite independently of each other that definitions of "father" and "mother" were required in this Bill. He put down his definitions in Amendment No. 4, and I put down my definitions in Amendment No. 5.
I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that some definition of these words is required because all the way through the Bill the words "father" and "mother" are used without any qualification and without any definition. Thus we have no way of knowing the person to whom they are intended to refer. Nothing could show this more clearly than the fact that both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I have put down amendments, and they indicate in some cases different
524
people because we cannot tell what the Government's intention is.
When it is a question of a married couple having a child in the ordinary way it is very simple, but when the child results from some other union or lack of union a definition is required. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, that in the case of AID the position is clarified by Clause 27, but that is not so in other cases. There used to be somebody called "the adulterous wife". She is now called "the woman who has a meaningful relationship with another man".
If she has this meaningful relationship and a baby results from it, under the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the purposes of this Bill the father is the third party. Under my amendment he is the husband. I do not particularly feel that the husband whose unfaithful wife has been living with another man for 10 years ought to be the father. What I am trying to do in this Bill is to put down a definition that will make the father the person who is at present in law the father, and whom the Government presumably want to continue being the father.
I have already mentioned the case where the conceptus fertilised by the previous late husband is used. Who is the father—the person who provided the semen to produce the conceptus, or the man she is married to? In the case of the mother, there are several different cases which have already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches. In particular, the case of the surrogate mother was mentioned. Who is to be considered the mother in this Bill in the case of surrogacy or when a donated ovum is used, or when a donated conceptus is used? If either of these definitions is employed it will be perfectly clear. There can be no dispute about who is meant by "father" and "mother".
I find that the definition of "mother" does not present too much difficulty because I regard the mother of a child as being the mother who gave birth to it. Even if she is a surrogate mother she is the mother, and should be considered as the person referred to as the mother in the Bill.
In the case of the father, if there was a subsisting marriage at the time of birth then the husband of the mother (whom we have defined) should be the father. In all other cases when there is not a subsisting marriage, the father should mean the genetic father; in other words, the person who provided the semen. I prefer that definition to that of the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches. But I think that either definition would be better than nothing.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is certainly right that quite independently of one another my noble and learned friend and he have put down attempted definitions of the rather well-known words "father" and "mother". He was also perfectly right—and I endorse it—that the two definitions they have put down are totally inconsistent with one another.
I am dealing only with Amendment No. 4. When we come to Amendment No. 5 (which I assume we shall do sooner or later) I will deal with it. I agree with the noble Lord sitting very close to me (but not in

525
anything but a technical sense) and who in a professional sense is my learned friend, that on the whole the definition is not necessary. In the great majority of cases the courts will correctly equate the term "father" at least with the biological father.
The definition of "father" attempted by my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches may be criticised on three grounds. The first ground I have already given—that it is unnecessary to define such a person as meaning the biological father in the terms specified. But unfortunately it is also defective because it does not include an adoptive father. It is vital that it should. It would include an adoptive father without the amendment of my noble and learned friend. It will not do so if my noble and learned friend's amendment is accepted.
Thirdly, there is the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when he pointed out that the amendment does not include a father within the meaning of Clause 27. The amendment states:
"unless the contrary intention appears"—
whatever that may mean.
The intention of the Bill is that the father should include the consenting husband in the case of a child engendered by artificial insemination. As I think one noble Lord said, that matter has been thoroughly investigated on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report; and they work in with the Surrogacy Act which has been mentioned. I am not going to press the attempted by Amendment No. 4. I ask my noble and learned friend not to press his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am not going to press the amendment. I am sorry that is has not been accepted. All I would say is that the definitions which I have stated and put down there are in conformity with the views of the Law Commission in its first report. They are in conformity with the views of the Warnock Report; and they work in with the Surrogacy Act which has been mentioned. I am not going to press the amendment to a Division because I am quite sure that if the matter comes to the courts of law they will accept the definition which I have already put down. In the circumstances, I am not going to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that the Statement has been cleared in the other place, but it would possibly be convenient if we dealt rather shortly with the noble Lord's Amendment No. 5, which is very closely connected with the last amendment. I shall be guided by the House in this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, let us proceed with the next amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am much obliged.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In this Act—

(a) references to the mother of a child shall be taken as being references to the woman who gave birth to that child; and

(b) references to the father of a child shall be taken as being references to—

(i) the husband of that child's mother in the case of a man who was a party to a marriage that subsisted during all or part of that child's gestation and was not ended by dissolution or divorce before that child's birth; and

(ii) the genetic father in all other cases.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall go on speaking until the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, arrives. I had not intended to speak to this amendment any more than I had in the course of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. In replying to the noble and learned Lord's amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was defective on the grounds that it did not cover an adoptive parent. My amendment does not cover adoptive parents either.
I must point out that one of the problems about this Bill is that there is no reference anywhere to an adoptive parent. For example, if your Lordships were to turn to Clause 9, which deals with consents to marriages, you will find that throughout the whole of that clause there are references to the mother and father, which covers the adoptive mother and the adoptive father. It is assumed that an adoptive mother and an adoptive father are in precisely the same position as the legal father and there is no need to include that. Therefore the definition is not defective either in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches or in my own amendment because there is no reference to adoption. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already dealt with the omission of the case of the adoptive father and I will not add to what I said in answer to my noble and learned friend. But the noble Lord's amendment has an even worse defect, which is that it would provide (if it were accepted) that where a woman conceives and gives birth as a result of an adulterous relationship her husband is to be taken as the father of the child. As well as its being objectionable in principle, I dare say that many fathers would object to this provision. So would I in the circumstances, though at the age of 79 the possibility is less likely than in the case of some your Lordships. At any rate, if I did find myself in that position and wished the child to be treated as a child of the marriage, I would adopt it.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it is not the 79 years of the noble and learned Lord that would matter. It is the age of his wife that would be relevant rather than the age of the noble and learned Lord, if I may say so; and I do not know what that is.
The noble and learned Lord has made a rather interesting statement, as he so often does. He said that in the case of a so-called adulterous wife the husband is not the legal father. Those of your Lordships who have rather flighty wives will no doubt be pleased to hear this. I am sure that we all will. I have always understood—I may be quite wrong—that if a child is

527
born and everybody, including the husband, knows that it is not the husband's child but someone else's, the child is nonetheless the legal child of the husband. As far as I know, that is the idea. Yet the fact was given by the noble and learned Lord as a reason why the amendment could not be accepted.
If we are to understand—it is quite a momentous occasion—that, in the event of a wife having a child by her adulterous lover or the person with whom she has a stable relationship, then that man is the legal father (which is what we have just been told from the Woolsack) some of us will heave a sigh of relief.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is now to be a Statement.

Rural Policy: Planning Implications
3.51 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the planning implications of the Government's newly announced policy on the rural economy. The Statement is as follows:
"We sent to the local authority associations and other bodies yesterday a draft circular on development involving agricultural land.
"Today's agricultural surpluses make the protection of land for agricultural production less necessary. So the draft circular proposes an adjustment of planning policy.
"The draft circular underlines the continuing need for strong planning control over the countryside. It says that the agricultural implications must be considered together with the environmental and economic aspects. In deciding applications local planning authorities will still have to take account of the agricultural quality of the land and the rate at which it is taken for development. These factors would have to be considered alongside the needs of the rural economy and the need to protect green belts, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other areas of good countryside."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend. We are aware that the document to which he has referred is going out for two months' consultation, but we assume that, when it was launched, there was some idea of the direction that future planning procedures might take. Arising from that, there are one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord.
We welcome the continued protection for certain designated areas but we note that they are not excluded from the use of redundant buildings
528
provision. This is something at which we might wish to look more closely as discussions go on. Eighty per cent. of the countryside is outside those areas. That 80 per cent. is to be protected from now on from discordant development only. Who will decide what is discordant? We are creating a few museums of the countryside, and that is probably all that will be left to pass on to the next generation in the form in which we know it.
Is green belt protection, which we are told will continue, to be confined to the South? I understand that serious breaches in Birmingham have been approved by the Secretary of State within the last year. I wonder whether this is likely to go on.
Will the availability of greenfield sites mean that development finance is attracted away from inner city rehabilitation? If that is not to be so, who will prevent it, and what planning procedures does the Minister propose to use to prevent that happening?
Is there to be even greater diversity between investment in the North and investment in the South? If that is so, and if it is to be prevented, by what means will it be prevented? The pressure for development up to now has been very much on the South, held back only by the policies that we are now changing.
Finally, what planning controls will remain after structure plans are scrapped? The dismantling of planning controls has been going on for some considerable time. We should like to know how far the process is to go.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Last evening the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, his colleague parried my queries concerning planning in regard to the Statement that we were discussing by saying that the environmental aspect of planning is not really affected by the Statement. I accepted those comments in good faith but, now that I have seen the Department of the Environment circular, I have considerable doubts.
Is it correct that this means the relaxation of planning controls affecting something like 80 to 85 per cent. of our farmland? We, on these Benches, approve of diversity on farms and aim towards improving the rural economy. But we are also concerned to protect the environment. How much of that farmland is likely to become available for housebuilding? We want more opportunities for people to live and work in the countryside, but not at any price. Too much expansion of housebuilding in rural areas, extra forestry and woodland planting could lead to too little countryside for the rest of us to enjoy. We are also concerned about what provisions there will be for continued access to the countryside when some of this land is sold off and used for other purposes.
The Secretary of State has been reported as saying there is absolutely no question of opening up the countryside to uncontrolled development. But we are wary of simplified planning controls. What influence will local councillors have over any such development? What opportunity will rural communities have to voice their views?
Up to now, MAFF approval has been required for over four hectares. That is increased to 20 hectares, leaving room for considerable development. We do

529
not want to see housing estates tagged on to, and around, our existing hamlets. We do not want to see the urban sprawl spread right through the country. What will be the position of tenant farmers on medium and low quality land, and how will the viability of their holdings be protected?
The circular, in my view, fails to lay down any valid guidelines for those parts of our countryside that are open to development. The planning authorities in the past have shown restraint over development on farmland. There is a danger that the circular will offer opportunities to speculative developers. I believe that, far from simplying the planning procedures, the circular will lead to more and not fewer appeals from developers who are trying their luck under the new rules. What guidance will the department give to inspectors at such an appeal? Will they be urged to rule in favour of local councils if those councils can show that the land in question is what they believe to be good countryside? If local people object to proposed developments, their view ought to carry great weight.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I should like to know the future for structure plans. What will replace them and how will planning authorities know which land is likely to be available for redevelopment? I must say that I find the circular unduly vague on many of these points. I fail to see how it achieves enough to be really relevant to the problems of our farmers and the problems associated with the common agricultural policy.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is interesting to compare the reception given by both noble Baronesses this afternoon with that accorded to the Statement of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, repeated by my noble friend Lord Belstead, yesterday. I observe from Hansard that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said last night, at column 501:
I also welcome the Statement from the Minister as a very progressive start to some new policies".
I am bound to ask both noble Baronesses—somewhat rhetorically, I hope—what has changed overnight. The position is exactly the same as it has always been, bar one germane factor. That, of course, is that, except in cases involving grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land, there is no statutory need to consult the Minister of Agriculture before continuing with the planning process. The important thing to realise is that the planning process will continue with the same guidance in the historical Department of Environment and Welsh Office circulars as has always been the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is right that this circular for consultation gives the direction of the Government's thinking. But I think it is unfortunate, to put it no higher, to suggest that only 80 per cent. of land is to be protected from discordant use. The green belt, for example, which covers areas both in the North and the South of the country, comprises some 14 per cent. of our land area in England. The other local and national conservation land areas also comprise a great deal of land. I accept straightaway that some of this land is likely to be grade 1 and grade 2 land, but nonetheless it is not true to say that there will be vast development over a vast proportion of the country.
530
Both noble Baronesses asked about structure plans. As is well known, there is a proposal to replace structure plans and local plans by a single system of district development plans which is out to consultation. Any statutory changes resulting from this exercise would not alter the substance of the statement made by either of my two right honourable friends.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the major difficulties facing those who want to bring forward developments of one kind or another is the extraordinary slowness and dilatoriness of local authorities' planning procedures? Can he say whether the circular does anything to tell them to improve this?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, not this particular circular. There is great emphasis within my department to encourage local authorities to bring forward decisions on these matters at the earliest opportunity. Equally, within the appeal system my department is trying hard to achieve exactly the same objective.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I asked the Minister rather an important question about diverting funds from inner city rehabilitation, and whether there was to be some means of preventing this happening given the added attraction of greenfield sites in the South which are obviously more profitable. Has any thought been given to this?
Lord Skelmersdale: Most certainly, my Lords, but the planning system provides today, if you like, exactly the same as it provided on Friday.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the questions I asked about what influence people in the communities concerned are to have on proposed developments within their area? He does not seem to have dealt with any of my questions at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I apologise. The local planning authorities are made up of elected councillors. That is the best safeguard for the planning system as a whole. I cannot believe that if there is a large local outcry any planning authority would be ignorant of that fact and would not take it into account in its considerations, as indeed planning authorities have in the past.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that over generations in this country both farmers and landowners produced some remarkable features in the countryside, long before there were any planning controls at all? I think particularly in my own part of the world of the lovely barns which are such a feature, scattered as they are about the Dales. Is it not rather unfair that the press this morning seemed to have cottoned on to the idea that every single farmer is going to sell off all his land and that rashes of houses are going to spring up everywhere? I am sure my noble friend will agree that the farmers in this country are a sensible lot, who appreciate the beauty of the countryside as much as anybody. I also ask whether

531
my noble friend welcomes the fact that there are to be alternative uses for redundant farm buildings. Many of the farm buildings in my part of the world are falling down because they are unsuitable for modern systems of farming. The idea of some alternative use for them is more than welcome.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for putting his finger squarely on the two points that he mentioned. The countryside in this country is principally man-made; as a result, practically all that there is therein is also man-made. If you want good conversation in this country it is certainly the farmer to whom you should principally turn. So far as the alternative use of farm buildings is concerned, my noble friend again is absolutely right. It does not do the cause of conservation any good at all to see crumbling farm buildings, wherever they are and whether listed or not. To use them is the best way to preserve them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when my right honourable friend receives the powerful representations that he will from the conservation lobby to keep everything as it is, will he please bear in mind not only that the landscape has been changing continually since the Roman occupation as a result of its economic development but that if it is frozen at any point in its development it ceases to be an economic place for people to live? Will my noble friend look at the recent history of village and rural communities, which have become increasingly unproductive places in which to live and thereby have lost their social structure and much of what is valuable to our society? Will he make it possible for development to take place in these communities so that people can work as well as live in them and so that they stop being mere commuter dormitories? Will he allow them to develop—as he will the redundant farm buildings—in a way that is not contrary to the beauty of the countryside?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I know that my noble friend takes particular interest in village shops and post offices and the maintenance of the rural economy as a whole. This slight change of policy is fully intended to maintain and increase the rural economy as a whole.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, when applying this policy will the Government consider the absolute need to remedy the terrible housing conditions, particularly in the South and the centre of this country? Will they also consider the need to remedy the terrible immobility of labour and the difficulty of tackling unemployment when it results from it being impossible for people to find houses when they want to move to new jobs?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I fully accept that this is part of the problem. But the subject that we are dealing with today is confined to rural areas, where mobility of labour makes the building of houses in some instances necessary on particular sites. This has always gone on through the planning system, and it will continue to go on through the planning system. The point I tried to stress to, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is that this change will make
532
very little, if any difference to our policies for the inner cities and indeed the results of activities in the inner cities, which I accept are equally desirable.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify the effect of this new dispensation on the planning law regarding the permission for new houses in open country? As the House knows, at present there is a presumption against the granting of such permission unless the applicant is going to live in the house himself and needs it to work certain specified fields which are around or near the house. Is this system going to be weakened, and will permission be given more freely for the construction of new dwellings in open country between villages?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not necessarily. The whole objective of this policy, and indeed the planning system generally, is to consider each case on its merits, which is the remit of the planning authority, backed up of course by the appeals system and ultimately by my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the proposals he has described are probably the most momentous, not since the Roman occupation, but for several decades? Is he satisfied that the planning law as it stands is strong enough to deal with the possible consequences of these proposals if they are eventually accepted? At the present time, as he knows, it is broadly the applicant for planning consent who has the right of appeal if the application is turned down. Will there not be a case in future for the objector to have the right of appeal? We in Wales, more than anyone else, know the consequences of unsatisfactory development in the break-up of communities. Is the noble Lord aware that we shall be pressing very, hard for an amendment of the planning law if the proposals proceed as at present?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in introducing his Written Answer last night my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said:
"With the European Community now producing surpluses in many of the main agricultural commodities, a new balance of policies has to be struck, with less support for expanding production, more attention to the demands of the market, more encouragement for alternative uses of land, more response to the claims of the environment, and more diversity on farms in the rural economy".—[Official Report, Commons; 9/2/1987.]
That was the basic rationale for the Statement that he made last night. This is something that noble Lords have been asking of the Government for very many years. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked me specifically whether the planning system in this country could cope with this new situation. I believe it can. If it is seen not to do so, it will have to be adapted to cope.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, my noble friend said that the countryside in this country was man-made. That is so to a certain extent, but I think he rather exaggerated when he quoted the Roman occupation. It was certainly man-made for the last 250 years. When this new legislation comes into being, how will it affect the wild areas in our countryside, which are certainly not man-made and are grade 3 and 4 land? How will it affect them? Are

533
the present protection societies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Nature Conservancy Council, strong enough to protect the wild areas, which amount to millions of acres, against this legislation.?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no question of abandoning the protection of locally or nationally identified environmentally valuable land, which includes green belt areas, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other regions of good countryside. Each planning application will still be considered on its merits according to the usual planning considerations. As I have said before, such considerations are the very rationale of planning authorities.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider one aspect of rural revival? I welcome any thing that moves towards giving back life to the rural community. The Minister mentioned post offices and the village shops, services that are essential to a rural community. Does he agree that the most central service in a rural community is the village school? Will he advise local education authorities to stop closing them?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I fully accept, with the noble Baroness, that village schools are part of the rural community. But that does not mean that village schools are part of a small community. They must have a hinterland from which to draw. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education considers these facts extremely carefully when he authorises the closing of local schools.
Lord Annan: My Lords, if we are in earnest about reducing unemployment (which depends to some extent on increasing the mobility of labour) and if we are in earnest about reforming the common agricultural policy (which means taking land out of agricultural use), is not this measure necessary?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course it is necessary.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while that may be so, does this not mean that there ought to be a fresh look at planning procedures? It will mean that the old restrictions will be relaxed. Is there not a case therefore for considering the planning regulations to see whether there is not now room, nevertheless, for the potential objector—who may be very adversely affected personally—to have the opportunity of a right of appeal of some kind?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already said in answer to the noble and learned Lord's noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that if it becomes apparent that planning law needs to be adjusted in this respect it will have to be adjusted. Whether that will include a right of appeal for objectors, as well as a right of appeal for those who have had their applications turned down, will need to be investigated in that light. But at the moment we do not propose to introduce a third party right of appeal.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the inner cities or major cities that were debated in your Lordships' House last week have, strangely enough, within their wider boundaries some of the small farms which, if these measures are carried to their ultimate conclusion, will be the type that will probably have to be phased out on economic grounds alone? Some of these farms form the very few green areas within these cities where people can look at expanses of grassland and perhaps enjoy them with the permission of the people involved. Is it not true that the proposals include a relaxation which may put such areas in peril, bearing in mind that for a long time the private sector housebuilding lobby has been casting envious eyes on them? Will the Minister take a few moments to answer the question put to him earlier by my noble friend Lady Nicol, who referred to the fact that the Secretary of State had acted rather differently in the past 12 months over some areas of Birmingham?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord pursues a theme that he brought up in our discussion of the Trafford Park Urban Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order last night. I believe it was him, but it might have been another noble Lord. The point at issue is that such areas are covered by my phrase, "locally or nationally environmentally valuable land". There is no intention in the light of the Statement to change the local plans on which all planning in this country is based.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend said about the continuance of planning control and the conservation of the green belt around cities. Does he agree, in view of the very wide interest shown in this Statement throughout the House, that the subject would be an admirable source of interest for a major debate in your Lordships' House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if a debate were to be arranged through the usual channels I am quite certain that either I or one of my noble friends would be delighted to respond to it on behalf of the Government.

Family Law Reform Bill [H.L.]
4.19 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 22 [Declarations of parentage]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 14, line I. leave out from ("for") to end of line 9 and insert ("a declaration that a person named in the application is or was his parent").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I ought to have said from the Woolsack, if that was the right place, but I now say it here, that I am told that as printed on the Marshalled List the amendment standing in my name is to,
"leave out from ('for') to end of line 9".
Whether that was a misprint I was frantically endeavouring to find out and I had not completely found out. Whether it was a misprint or a mistake, it

535
ought to have read "line 7" and not "line 9". When the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, moves his amendment to my amendment it may turn out that he was quicker than I to spot the defect in the drafting.
However, if I may, I should like to put it in case it was not a misprint which I should be entitled to change. I should like to suggest that I put in a manuscript amendment to the extent of saying, "to the end of line 7", which would have the effect of retaining subsection (2) in the Bill as drafted. I think that would be better than the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, moves his amendment to my amendment. At any rate we are on the same point. The noble Lord moved an amendment at the Report stage in terms identical with those that I intended to move on 15th January 1987 at col. 654 of Hansard. This is a new provision inserted into the Act of 1986, Section 56, and it does not alter the substance of Clause 2 in any way. It was, as the noble Lord said when we discussed this before, a drafting amendment.
I was at that time a little reluctant to accept it as it stood, because the draftsman had pointed out to me that, although it would appear to have no effect upon the Act of 1986, it might very well be thought to have unexpected repercussions. We should be amending another Act of Parliament by inserting a new clause and it might have repercussions on other clauses. I have caused a good deal of investigation to be made since then and the conclusion is that it would have no effect on that other Act of Parliament and that the amendment of the noble Lord is therefore neater than the draft in the Bill.
I do not know what the House will allow me to do but I think I am in order in asking to substitute "line 7" for "line 9" in my amendment which would have the effect of retaining subsection (2) of the new Section 56. That is what I am advised to do if that is for the convenience of the House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend entitled on Third Reading to move a manuscript amendment? I feel that that should be done and it is convenient, but I remember a Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate wanted to move a manuscript amendment when it was pointed out that there was a defect in his Scottish amendment. We were told that no manuscript amendment could be moved on Third Reading. My own view is that that is so and it is apparently so. It is a defect in our procedure.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right. There is a rule preventing manuscript amendments being put forward on Third Reading. I do not understand the rule and if we can waive it today so much the better.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment before the noble and learned Lord puts the amendment, he is perfectly right. I noticed that in the amendment as he had tabled it, it left out the whole of the passage down to the end of line 9. He now says that that was not intended, but of course I could not tell that that was the case and therefore that subsection (2) would not come out. I thought that the provision in
536
subsection (2) ought to stay and so in my Amendment No. 7, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 6, I tagged on the provision of subsection (2) to the end of subsection (1). Therefore, without moving a manuscript amendment but simply by accepting my Amendment No. 7 the provision of subsection (2) will be included and Amendment No. 6 can stand as it is at present drafted.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, my attention has been drawn to Standing Order No. 46 of the House which says that no amendment other than a privilege amendment shall be moved upon Third Reading of a public Bill unless notice of the amendment has been given to the Clerk not later than the day preceding that on which the amendment is to be moved in sufficient time to enable the amendment to be printed and circulated in the form in which it is to be moved. That seems to support the suggestion that a manuscript amendment as such is not permissible. Whether that applies to what the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack suggests might be a misprint—in which case the amendment which was handed in was correct but unfortunately was not correctly transcribed—I do not know. I should have thought it would be a ridiculous situation if a misprint cannot be corrected.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the trouble about it is that I had my attention drawn to this only at the time I was discussing a previous amendment, a very few minutes before the Statement began, and I have been frantically trying to find out whether the omission was a lapsus calami on the part of the draftsman or a misprint on the part of the transcriber. Whichever way it is, if I may, in order to avoid any point of order being valid, I shall accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to my amendment but without prejudice to restoring the text to what I intended it to be. I believe the effect is the same but I slightly prefer the original form that I had intended to be part of the Bill. However, having said that, I shall now move my Amendment No. 6 as it stands and ask the noble Lord to move his amendment to my amendment, in which case, on the understanding that I have given, I shall accept it. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 7:
Insert after the words to be inserted ("or that he is the legitimate child of his parents").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment No. 7 as an amendment to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment No. 6. I was going to start my remarks by saying how delighted I was to have managed to deliver one googly that got through the defences of Stonewall Jackson, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Now I am able to say that I have apparently been able to deliver two such googlies.
So far as Amendment No. 6 is concerned, I should like only to say that I want to thank all those noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported me. That support was perhaps what convinced the noble and learned Lord that my amendment should be accepted. I should like to mention also how sorry I am

537
that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who supported me then, is unfortunately unable to be here today.
I put down Amendment No. 7 simply because I saw that subsection (2) had been omitted. I thought that might have been an error but I had to take the amendment as I found it and I saw no reason for subsection (2) being deleted. Indeed if the noble and learned Lord, as I am sure is the case, did not notice this until just before the Statement, I can only say that the presence of my Amendment No. 7 could have alerted him or any of the officials in his department. If the subsection is deleted only as far as line 7 then my amendment does not make sense: it simply repeats what is already in the Bill. However, I am so glad that two of my amendments are going to appear on the statute book that all I need do is to say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord for making his suggestion. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 7.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the question of whether or not a manuscript amendment is allowed does not really apply in this case because if the House has made it quite clear that the entry in the formal amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of "line 9" should in fact read "line 7", it is perfectly within the power of the Clerks of the House to correct what is in effect nothing more than a typographical error. Whether that error arose from the time of the tabling of the amendment and the transcription of that amendment to the printed paper is neither here nor there. I think it would be perfectly legitimate for the Clerks to amend the wording of the amendment with no embarrassment or difficulty whatsoever.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there are two matters which arise on these amendments. One is procedural and the other concerns drafting. As regards drafting, undoubtedly this is an improvement. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack described himself as being a little reluctant at Report stage. I think he did himself an injustice. He acted much more categorically than that. At any rate, there was universal feeling that the draft of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was an improvement to the Bill. This gives us an opportunity of saying how much we all owe to the noble Lord for the immense care that he has taken with this Bill.
The manuscript amendment is yet another example of the extreme inconvenience of ruling out manuscript amendments at Third Reading in all circumstances. As a result of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which dealt with consanguinity, I have taken the matter up with the Procedure Committee, and I hope that I shall have the support of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in that regard.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, on the procedural point, it seems to me that there is a matter which the House should look at. Undoubtedly the Standing Order can be read in more than one way. We may be in a situation in which we do not have further consideration of this Bill if it comes from another place. It is fortunate that there is further consideration, and therefore the sensible suggestion, if I may say so,
538
of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can be given effect. It would be a great pity if a desirable amendment could not be made because there is no further consideration of the Bill. While there may be good reasons for the present wording of the Standing Order, perhaps it ought to be looked at again to see whether, in the particular circumstances of this case, there could be an exception grafted on to it.
As regards the substance of the two amendments, I should like to echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said about my noble friend Lord Kilbracken's efforts to improve this Bill. His earlier efforts this afternoon may perhaps have been "Bothamed" (shall I say?) by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. However, he has produced some very important issues which the noble and learned Lord has taken up in this and other amendments. I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may just say in reply to the speeches which have been made that I am still a little doubtful whether what happened was a misprint or whether it was error on the part of the draftsmen. If it was the latter, I think we are caught by the Standing Order. If it was the former, the printer could alter it, and I think we had better follow the course I presented previously. I am afraid that it was not so much a googly that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, bowled me; I think I hit my own wicket! Whichever way it was, if I may say so I am happy to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which is Amendment No. 7 to my Amendment No. 6. We shall reconsider the actual draftsmanship, if we may, if it goes to another place. It is purely a drafting matter.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord. I am afraid that I was tied up in a web of my own weaving. Otherwise I should have thanked him before, and I apologise for not doing so.
On Question, Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 14, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert—
("( ) Any person may apply to the Court for a declaration that he has, or that he has not, been legitimated.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have an idea that I may be pushing my luck here. Your Lordships will see that subsection (3) of new Section 56 of the Act that we are amending occupies seven lines. It is about as long as subsection (1), which we have just managed to cut down to a couple of lines. When I realised that my amendment to subsection (1) was apparently going to be accepted, I thought: why not do exactly the same thing to subsection (3)? I believe that that is what I have done.
If your Lordships will look at my amendment, I simply say, in place of the rigmarole that is in the Bill at present, that,
"Any person may apply to the Court for a declaration that he has, or that he has not, been legitimated".
I believe that that says everything which the present version takes seven lines to say. In other words, it is

539
consistent with the kind of language used, it is more concise language and it is better English for what is now the first subsection of that new section. I believe that where we can cut down passages, as it has been agreed we should do, we ought to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would not say that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is pushing his luck. Far from it, after the position in which I found myself as regards the last amendment. I think that I should be pushing my luck rather far if I attempted that. However, this illustrates my reluctance to interfere with the drafting of what is basically a new section to another Act.
I am advised that the amendment would put Section 56(3) of the Family Law Act 1986 out of line with Section 57(2) of the same Act. Section 57 deals with declarations as to foreign adoptions. These subsections deal with declarations that cannot both be made. The applicant must either have become or not have become a legitimated person. Similarly, he either is or is not an adopted person for the purposes of Section 39 of the Adoption Act 1976. Both subsections set out the two sets of alternatives as separate propositions. It would not be right to make a single drafting amendment to Section 56(3) and there can be no question of amending Section 57(2) because to do so would be outside the scope of this Bill.
I suggest that the amendment ought to be withdrawn, not because it is a bad one but because of what I have said. As I have pointed out, it is aimed at a provision which is of a different type from Section 56(1). The two propositions in that provision are not in the alternative. In Amendment No. 6 it was possible to reduce them to a single formula without putting the provision seriously out of line with any other provision in the Family Law Act 1986. I am told that this is not the case with the proposed amendment to be inserted into Section 56(3), and I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to withdraw his amendment. Having regard to the sackcloth and ashes in which I must now figuratively stand, I shall look at the matter again, but this is the stance that I would ask the noble Lord to take.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Naturally, I do not have the Family Law Act 1986 with me and therefore I cannot possibly look it up, but I am sure that what the noble and learned Lord has said is absolutely true. I have every intention of withdrawing the amendment, but before we leave the drafting questions I should like to mention to the noble and learned Lord that when a batsman is given out "hit wicket", the bowler is credited with his wicket. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Provisions as to blood tests]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 44, leave out ("blood") and insert ("scientific").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 11, 12, 14
540
and 26. I should have said from the Woolsack that if Amendment No. 14 were to be agreed to when called I should not thereafter be able to call Amendment No. 15.
This again is the result of discussion at an earlier stage. This sequence of amendments fills a lacuna in Clause 23 which permits the court to order only testing on blood. The amendments would allow the court to order tests on blood and all bodily tissue and fluids in order to settle an issue of parentage in any civil proceedings. At present under Clause 23 the court is permitted to order testing on blood only. This is a lacuna—and here I am entering into scientific fields about which I am ill qualified to speak—because the new DNA fingerprinting which enables an individual to be positively identified as the son or daughter of another individual may be carried out on any bodily substance. The amendments to Clause 23 make the necessary changes to Clauses 20 and 25 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, and consequential amendments are made in Schedule 2. Again, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for bringing this matter to my attention at the Report stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting down this series of amendments, which arise, I think I may claim, from my amendment at Report stage to substitute blood and tissue for blood. The proposals which he has put down to remedy this defect are completely satisfactory and I support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have not spoken to Amendment No. 10, which is separate. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, wishes to move it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 14, line 45, leave out ("is or is not") and insert ("is, is not, or is not excluded from being").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the necessity for this amendment seems to arise from the amendment that has just been accepted. The clause now reads that the court may,
give a direction—
(a) for the use of scientific tests to ascertain whether such tests show that a party to the proceedings is or is not the father or mother of that person".
It has been broadened so that instead of referring merely to blood tests it refers also to DNA analysis and tissue typing. Those two techniques are likely to be used although the court may decide that a blood test is all that is necessary. But now that the word "blood" has been deleted and "scientific" has been inserted, it seems to me that the present wording of the subsection would not make it possible for ordinary simple blood tests to be ordered.
As the subsection stands tests can be ordered only if they show whether a person is or is not the father of the child. Blood tests cannot do that; DNA analysis can. Blood tests can in certain cases show that a person is not the father of a child but they can never say that a person is the father of a child. They can show that he

541
is not excluded from being the father of the child. They can show that out of every hundred men in this country, given the blood of the father and mother, only one or two are capable of being the father, because the frequency with which different types of blood occur is well known.
It may in certain cases become more and more likely that a person is the father. It is never possible to say with certainty, and quite possibly a blood test will give no real indication of whether or not a person is the father. If that is the case, it seems to me that blood tests are not covered by the subsection as it has been amended. The reference to what are now described as scientific tests can only be for DNA analysis and tissue typing and not for the orthodox blood tests which must be included in this paragraph.
My amendment would make paragraph (a) read,
"whether such tests show that a party to the proceedings is, is not, or is not excluded from being, the father or mother of that person".
That would make it possible for the court to order whichever of these tests it liked. I believe that that is necessary and I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, again I am in rather deep water scientifically but I am advised that this amendment is unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is correct of course in saying that the present generation of blood tests operates on an exclusionary basis—that is to say, such tests reveal only with varying degrees of probability whether or not a particular individual is excluded from being the parent of a person. However, it may be that in some cases, if a person is revealed by a blood test as not being excluded from being the parent, the court may be satisfied that such a test has revealed with such a high degree of probability—perhaps on the basis of other evidence of an extraneous kind—the likelihood that he is or she is the parent in question as to justify a finding. In such cases the court ought to make a finding of parentage.
Furthermore, the court may order a blood test from one person on the supposition that if he is excluded it will then be possible to ascertain that some other person is the parent. That case is also covered by the present wording and therefore, as at present advised, although I see the point of what the noble Lord is saying, I would ask him not to press the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, as I think I said in my earlier remarks, the ordinary, everyday, old-fashioned blood test can show that it is very likely that one particular man is the father. These tests can clearly be of value when, as is often the case, it is a question merely of which of two men is the father when it is known, admitted and agreed that one of two men is the father. If the blood tests are carried out and if they are lucky—or unlucky, as one chooses to regard it—and one of them is eliminated, it can be taken that the other is definitely the father.
The point is that I still do not think that these blood tests can be taken as tests to show that a party to the proceedings is or is not the father or mother. These tests cannot show whether a person is the father. They cannot show also whether a women is the mother, should that ever be in doubt which I do not think it ever is. Therefore, although I do not intend to press the
542
matter further, perhaps, before this measure goes to another place, the merit of what I propose should be considered. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 48, leave out ("blood") and insert ("bodily").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 15, line 3, leave out ("blood") and insert ("scientific").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have also spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 15, line 8, after ("being") insert (", or is identified as being,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another point that arises as a result of the substitution of "scientific" for "blood" in subsection (1), but the other way round. Subsection (2)(b) is completely appropriate if we are only referring to blood tests, because it states that the person responsible for carrying out these tests, now described as scientific tests,
"shall make to the court a report in which he shall state whether any party to whom the report relates is or is not excluded by the results from being the father or mother".
That is exactly what the report would state if blood tests were being used. The report would say that the person is excluded or that the person is not excluded. However, if the more sophisticated tests are being used to establish paternity, such as those the noble and learned Lord called DNA fingerprinting, or through tissue-typing, then the father will be positively identified. Therefore, one of the things that the person responsible for the tests can report is not merely whether the person is or is not excluded by the results from being the father or mother but whether that person is positively identified as being the parent. Therefore, since that is one result that the person making the report will usually give, if modem tests are used, I feel that it certainly ought to be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if one looks at subsection (2)(c) it is clear to me at any rate that the necessity for Amendment No. 13 is in doubt. I believe that Clause 23(2)(c) covers the point in the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: As at present advised I agree with the view but would go a little further and say that the insertion of the words "is identified as being" would suggest that the blood tests alone, quite apart from any other evidence in the case, can identify, and that would be quite wrong.
The Lord Chancellor: I appear to take an intermediate position. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, says, the amendment is not necessary. Section 20(2)(b), as inserted by Clause 23(1) of the Bill, is concerned only with cases in which one

543
of the present generation of blood tests has been carried out: that is, a test which operates on the basis that a person is or is not excluded from being a parent.
No amendment to that provision is therefore needed to reflect the next generation of blood tests which are based on DNA genetic fingerprinting and which enable positive identification of a parent to be achieved. With these tests the inserted Section 20(2)(c) is the relevant provision and not paragraph (b). It is drafted in a way that is entirely consonant with such new tests. In answer to the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite, this Bill is designed to deal with the possible generation of new tests rather than the existing exclusionary tests.
I take note, of course, of what the noble Lord said because I have been very conscious that, scientifically, many of these matters are outside my special knowledge. Therefore, I take note of what he says and will take advice on it. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying he will take further advice. Certainly, I do not intend to press my amendment. However, I should like to say in regard to the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin that, of course, in the case of blood tests these will only show whether a person is or is not excluded, by the results, from being the father or mother. So long as blood tests only are being provided for, that is perfectly correct. However, if my amendment were accepted, that phrase would still be included, but would go on to say that the report should state,
"or is identified as being the father or mother"
which could not be done if blood tests are being used. However, that could be done if the more sophisticated tests are being used.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that, under paragraph (c), if for example DNA fingerprinting is done, the value is enormous. It is 100 per cent. It identifies the person. However, it does not seem to me to remove the necessity of saying that one result which can be given is that a certain person is positively identified. I would prefer to see the change made and I am glad that it is to be given further consideration. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In section 25 of that Act (interpretation of Part 111)—

(a) for the definitions of "blood samples" and "blood tests" there shall be substituted the following definition—

"'bodily sample' means a sample of bodily fluid or bodily tissue taken for the purpose of scientific tests;"; and

(b) after the definition of "excluded" there shall be inserted the following definition—

"'scientific tests' means scientific tests carried out under this Part of this Act and made with the object of ascertaining the inheritable characteristics of bodily fluids or bodily tissue."")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 15.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said earlier that he would not be able to call Amendment No. 15, having agreed to Amendment No. 9.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I am playing two roles in this particular drama and I sometimes get them mixed. My noble friend is right. I cannot call Amendment No. 15.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I was not going to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Registration of births.
—.(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions in section 4 of the Perjury Act 1911 enacted so as to preserve the integrity and reliability of the register of births; and in particular the provisions that it is a criminal offence for any person wilfully to make a false answer to any question put to him by any registrar of births: or wilfully to give to any such registrar any false information concerning any birth.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of sections 1, 2 or 36 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to the effect that it is the duty of the father and mother of a child to give information to the Registrar of Births concerning the birth of the child and making it an offence wilfully to refuse to answer any question put to him or her by the Registrar.
(3) It is hereby declared that it is the duty of every Registrar of Births to ascertain to the best of his ability the true facts relating to the birth of any child and to see that they are properly recorded in the register.
(4) In the case of any child born as result of artificial insemination of a married woman with the semen of some man other than her husband, the Registrar shall not enter in the register the name of her husband as the father but shall enter the name of the other man as the father if it is known, or otherwise shall leave his name as unknown, or the entry blank, in accordance with section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that this is an important amendment. It is concerned with the integrity and reliability of the birth certificate—a most important feature in our society. I tabled this amendment in order to bring home the opening words of Clause 24 (repeating the Act of 1953):
"in the case of a child whose father and mother were not married to each other at the time of his birth, no person shall as father of the child be required to give information concerning the birth of the child, and the registrar shall not enter in the register the name of any person as father of the child".
Let us take that case and apply it to a wife who is an adulteress. There is no doubt whatever that the child's father and mother were not married to each other at the time of the birth and therefore no name should be entered as that of the father. It would be quite impermissible to put in the name of the husband as the father. Is it any different when the wife is artificially inseminated with the semen of an unknown donor? Is the law to be considered different? Indeed, is the person who puts in the birth certificate entitled to tell a lie and to say that the husband is the father when everyone knows that he is not and that the father is an unknown donor? That is the crucial point that I am seeking to bring out in this amendment.
In our society it is vital that the register of births should be reliable. Let us consider the position of any hereditary Peer in this House. Is he or are his descendants to have a bastard put upon them in the shape of a donor's child? I suggest that that is quite wrong. The register of births should tell the truth. It should not show the name of the husband as the father because he is not the father; it should show no known man as the father. That is the way to keep the integrity of the register of births. That is what Section 10 of the statute says at the moment.
In the first two subsections of my amendment I have sought to warn the whole world, if need be, of the importance of the register of births being true and accurate. I have cited the relevant statutes. It is an offence against the Perjury Act to tell lies of that kind and such an offence is punishable with seven years' imprisonment if thought necessary. In the other Act it is an offence to refuse to give information or tell anything but the truth. Thirdly, I have said that it is the duty of the Registrar of Births to ascertain the facts and to see that they are properly registered. I suggest that no one can quarrel with those three propositions.
I then dealt with the crucial point, which concerns artificial insemination. Is that to be considered differently? Is a person to be permitted to tell a lie and to say that the husband is the father of the child when he is not? Is that in the interests of the child? Is it in the child's interests to deceive him as to who is his father and not tell him the truth? On all hands it is agreed that when a child is 18 he should be told the truth. Every child has a right to know who is his father and to be told the truth. Is the child to be deceived in that way? Are the grandparents to be so deceived? What about succeeding generations? Are they to be deceived? May one deceive a hereditary Peer or a genealogist?
I should say that Sir Anthony Wagner, Clarenceux King of Arms and late Garter King of Arms, takes strong exception to such falsehoods being put in the register of births. Equally so does the Society of Genealogists, and the like. There should not be a false entry in the register of births. That is why my amendment states:
"in the case of any child born as a result of artificial insemination of a married woman with the semen of some man other than her husband, the Registrar shall not enter in the register the name of her husband as the father but shall enter the name of the other man as the father if it is known, or otherwise shall leave his name as unknown, or the entry blank, in accordance with [this statute]".
That is the law at the moment and I wish it to be declared.
I have heard this afternoon that Clause 27 of this Bill will make it lawful to tell a lie. Is it to be permitted by our law that a husband may have his name entered as the father of a child when everyone knows that he is not the father? Since the Warnock report was submitted, the Department of Health and Social Security has canvassed views on this matter and it says in paragraph 30 of its command paper, published during the course of the passage of this Bill through the House that:
"There was a strongly held view that the legal father should be allowed to enter his name on the birth register only if the entry could be linked by the Registrar General with a central record of AID births … This was thought to be essential:

(a) to maintain the integrity and reliability of the birth register as a record of biological fact;

546

(b) to ensure the child's right of access, as an adult, to an accurate record of the biological facts of his birth …

(c) to give an AID child who wished to marry the opportunity to ensure that there was no prohibited relationship with the intended spouse".

That is the latest view on this subject. It is a strongly held view. The name of the husband is not to be entered as the father unless there are some such words as, "by donation of- or something by which the child and everyone else can get to know it. That is the view the Warnock Report. It says that there should be a register and a licence for all these things. It says that the clandestine use of AID processes could be very harmful, and so they could. I need not continue. How much more will it be thought clandestine when a couple, either partner or both, can falsify a birth certificate in this way? I was not able to go into this matter at the Report stage.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor says that it is a technical offence. As Lord Chancellor he could not condone it in law. As a layman of the Church of England he could understand it as an act of compassion. I also am a member of the Church of England and I deplore lies being told about such a solemn matter as a birth certificate. If I were sitting as a judge and I knew that a Peeress and her hasband together had falsified the birth certificate in order to taint the descendants, I should treat the matter as a serious offence.
I am pressing this matter in order to uphold the integrity and reliability of the register of births and I ask your Lordships to support my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I think that there is a certain atmosphere of déjà vu about this debate. At Committee stage we went into this matter at considerable length. I think it is right that your Lordships should have in mind the circumstances that give rise to the amendment that has been moved by the noble and learned Lord. Those circumstances occur where a husband and wife, who clearly passionately want to have a child, cannot produce a child because the husband is unable to perform his necessary part in the production of a child. To have the blessing of a child and to bind together the marriage, with the consent both of the wife and of the husband, they use the modern and, one hopes, beneficent process of artificial insemination from a person whose identity will not be known by anyone. The child that is born as a result will be regarded by the husband and the wife as being as much their child as if the child were naturally born in the ordinary course of events.
The noble and learned Lord wishes to create a difference; he wishes to create a situation in which the whole world and the child, irrespective of the wishes of the husband and the wife, will be able at any time to learn of the circumstances of his birth and of the fact that his father was physiologically unable to take part in the production of that child. No matter how much they may love him, that will be a factor which he will be required to learn or able to learn if the amendment is carried into law.
When I pointed that out in Committee—I was supported by other speakers—I had the strong impression that the Committee was not agreeable to

547
such a course as the noble and learned Lord has suggested and supported the view that I ventured to put forward, which was that it is for the husband and the mother to decide when and whether the child should know the circumstances of his origin and not something which the law should compel him to be informed about irrespective of their consent.
I cannot believe that it would be regarded by a more senior member of the family—the grandfather—as a form of deception in those circumstances if the grandfather also relied upon his daughter or his son, as the case may be, to let him know, if they thought fit, that that was the circumstance that had resulted in the birth of their child.
I hope that the House will not accept this proposal. I can think of nothing that would be more likely to drive a coach and horses through the purpose of Clause 27 (the AID clause), which is the unfortunate circumstances with which we are dealing and which would allow a measure of relief to the husband and the mother that otherwise they would not have. If they know the consequences which will follow as a result of the noble and learned Lord's amendment they will be strongly deterred from following that course.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord in inviting your Lordships not to accept the amendment. It raises serious questions. It is important in a civilised society that we should have a reliable system for the registration of births, but it is also now recognised that it is terribly important to most of us, if not all, that we should know something of our roots.
Parliament has recognised that basic human need in the Children Act 1975 which, as your Lordships may know, allows adopted children to obtain certain information about their origins. AID, which is covered by Clause 27 and to which this amendment and Clause 24 are directed, can be seen as a form of pre-natal adoption and yet there are differences from the adoption process. AID is an altogether more private affair. It is less likely to be discussed outside the immediate family. There is no need to go to court, but one would hope, as with adoption, that there would be counselling and that that counselling would include consideration by the couple of whether and when to tell the child of its true, natural parentage.
On balance, one must come down against the intention of the amendment for practical reasons. First, unlike adoption, the natural father in an AID case will be an unknown donor, the preservation of whose anonymity is essential to successful AID.
Secondly, this is something with which the Law Commission dealt in some detail in its first report when it considered the possibility of having some special annotation on the birth register. It concluded:
"This solution has one major disadvantage: there may be cases where the husband of a woman who has receivd AID treatment might in fact be the father of the child".
In practical terms, where a couple agree to undergo AID, intercourse does not cease. The husband may not be completely impotent. He may merely have a low sperm count. It is nevertheless possible for him to
548
be the father of the resulting child. It will not therefore help the accuracy of the birth record to delete the husband as the father of the child and it will not help the child.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for putting much more eloquently and with greater learning the point that I was trying to make on Report when I asked that Clause 27 should not stand part of the Bill. I do not want to repeat anything that I said then; I wish to introduce two points which I did not make.
The first is that when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack introduced the Bill he said that it was for the benefit of the children. I had thought that the benefit of the children was what we had in mind. The arguments adduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, were for the benefit of the parents and the grandparents and not for the benefit of the children. I thought that it was a principle which is now generally recognised that children should know as much as possible about their origins. I appreciate that in the case of AID it is improbable that they would know (I hope they would not) who their genetic father was, but nevertheless they should know as much as possible about their origins.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, described AID, if I remember aright, as a kind of pre-natal adoption with a certain difference. There is a great difference. An adopted child was an unwanted child, or otherwise the child would not have been adopted. An AID child is a desperately wanted child. That distinction should be made. I am therefore puzzled, if we are thinking of the benefit of the child and not of the parents, why it is so dreadful to have "by donation" on the birth certificate. As things stand, under Statutory Instrument 1968 No. 2049 (No. 37) the Registrar General is required to put "by adoption" on the birth certificate. If I had the choice, I should prefer to be an AID child who was wanted rather than an adopted child who fortunately found parents because I was unwanted. We should perhaps remember that whatever we decide about this amendment the Registrar General, with the Minister's consent, has the power to insist that "by donation" is put on the birth certificate.
Under Clause 1 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 the Registrar-General shall prescribe such particulars as may be prescribed. That is legal language. Clause 39(a) provides that with the approval of the Minister the Registrar-General by statutory instrument may prescribe
"anything which by this Act is required to be prescribed."
We should bear in mind that whatever we actually sign, as I am informed by legal people who know more about these matters than I do, with the approval of the Minister it would be possible for the Registrar-General to make such regulations. I assume in this case that it is the Minister of Health. We shall come to that when we consider the Warnock recommendations in due course.
However, it would seem to me to be very sad if your Lordships' House did not agree with the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about the

549
truth rather than await some possible regulation from the Registrar-General. Therefore despite what has been said I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will persevere with his amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords before the right reverend Prelate sits down will he give a second thought to his astonishing observation that the adopted child is an unwanted child? Very often the parents are killed. The children are loved by their parents who adopt them. That ought not to stand on the record even from the lips of the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said. I appreciate that there are cases when, very tragically, parents die and orphans are adopted. I withdraw my statement to that extent and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing it out. Nonetheless, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that a very large number of adoptions used to be of an unwanted child. Of course since the Abortion Act the foetus is killed. I cannot withdraw my statement that adoption in principle is usually undertaken because for one reason or another—a single parent family, too many children, or whatever—the parents feel that they do not want the child.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend summarised in ringing tones the purpose of the first three subsections of this new clause. He then said, again in ringing tones, that no one will dissent from that. I have to say with all respect to him that I strongly dissent with regard to subsection (3). It seems to me highly objectionable to put on the registrar the duty of inquiring the true facts relating to the birth of any child, particularly in the circumstances with which we are concerned. To have the registrar cross-examining the persons who are seeking the registration to ascertain the circumstances in which the child was engendered seems to me impossible of acceptance.
I am not at all enamoured of Clause 27. I thought that the right reverend Prelate was quite right in seeking to remove it from this Bill. No doubt we shall have a chance to discuss that on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. However, that would be the way to deal with the problem which I know is of moment to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. If only because of subsection (3), and the duty of inquisition, I am afraid that I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am bound to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, one question: what is truth? The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has mentioned the fact that during the time that artificial insemination has taken place nevertheless sexual intercourse continues between husband and wife. Those of us who have dealt with adoption meet a very extraordinary situation. A husband and wife, who have not been able to have children, come to an adoption society and ask to adopt a child. One goes through all the procedures for adoption and a child is placed for adoption.
550
By some strange chance, very shortly afterwards the wife conceives. None of us in the world of adoption have ever been able to understand this except that the adoption releases some kind of tension between husband and wife and they have a child. Very often we have placed children for adoption and the couple have then proceeded to have one or two children of their own. Therefore it can never categorically be stated that a couple cannot have a child, unless, for instance, the woman has had a hysterectomy or some other operation has taken place.
On this point the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the couple who have had artificial insemination and continue to have intercourse. How is one to know absolutely definitely that the child is the child of artificial insemination or the child of the parents? With the experience that I have had in the adoption field of this extraordinary phenomenon of couples having been married for 10 or 12 years without having a child and then having a child when the adoption takes place, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, this question. Would it not be equally dishonest therefore to say that this is the child of artificial insemination when one does not definitely know?
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I too have spoken on this subject at earlier stages. I do not wish to repeat anything that I said. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for what she has said. It is within my experience that with a couple who have been unable to have children for many years, the wife becomes pregnant as soon as a child is adopted. However, I would also say that where a couple have been trying for all these years without success to have a child, if the woman then has artificial insemination from a donor and the couple continue to have intercourse over that period (if they are capable of having intercourse), it would be extremely unlikely—a theoretical possibility but very unlikely when the father has not been able to sire a child during all that time—that he would be able to do so simply because his wife has had AID.
My noble and learned friend Lord Silkin pointed out that if the amendment was accepted a child could learn at any time that his supposed father was not his genetic father. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred to a situation where a child could discover that his father was not his genetic father. However, a point that does not seem to have been appreciated is that most children—I would say all children—do not see their birth certificate. A birth certificate is not something which has to be displayed on the wall like a psychiatrist's diploma.
I do not know when I have ever had to look at my birth certificate or when anyone has to look at his birth certificate. Perhaps one has to do so when applying for a passport, but making an application for a passport for anyone up to the age of 18 will be done by the parents anyway. The child will not see this document. He will not suddenly discover the words "by donor". It will be safely deposited in a registry of births. Of course after the age of 18 the now adult child may require his birth certificate for some reason or another. Under the amendment of the noble and learned Lord he would get the birth certificate and would say, "My God, the semen was donated". However, in my

551
opinion, in those circumstances, it should be understood that when a couple decide to use AID, the child should be made aware of this at least by the age of 18, if not sooner.
I agree completely with the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches. A child, on reaching a certain age, has the right to know who his real father is. A child should not be allowed to grow up and to imagine, completely falsely and completely erroneously, that a certain person is his father when it is somebody quite different. I support the noble and learned Lord on that point.
In my opinion, the preferable solution—one that deals with that problem and is more effective than deleting Clause 27—is to accept the noble and learned Lord's Amendment No. 20 which says:
"This section shall not come into effect until there is established a statutory licensing body".
and so on. That would defer consideration of the whole matter until we have been able to consider it properly and until the exact regulations have been laid down with the consent of everybody. The most important matter in the whole question is that Amendment No. 20 should be accepted and that those words should become part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, the answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that the child may be—only may be—the result of artificial insemination, is to be found in the first three lines of Clause 27 which refer to a child born,
"as the result of the artificial insemination"
of the mother. That needs no clarification, no "ifs" and "buts".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have flogged this horse pretty thoroughly. We flogged him on Second Reading; we gave him another beating in Committee; we had another go on Report, although my noble and learned friend who proposes the amendment was unfortunately snowed-up on that occasion; and we are now flogging him again on Third Reading.
That indicates a good deal of difference of opinion—sincerely held opinion—on the matter. However, it confirms me on one point in my judgment when I decided what should be inside and what should not be inside the Bill. From my personal point of view it would have been very much easier for me to say, "Let us postpone the whole thing until the Greek Calends"—in other words, until we legislate or do not legislate the whole Warnock Report. That was an option and it would have been the easy way out for me, but I did not take it. I believe that I have now explained four times why I did not take it. I shall repeat it once more. I did not take that option because I thought that there was an issue of principle to be decided and that it would be unfair, in an Act dealing with the status of children alleged to be illegitimate, not to clarify the position of children who might or might not be the result—I take the point of my noble friend Lady Faithfull—of the process known as AID. I still think that I was right.
552
The fact that these debates have taken place rather confirms my judgment that it is no good dodging issues that must be faced sooner or later. If asked whether it was for the interest of the parents, whether it was for the welfare and justice of the child, or whether, as I am rather inclined to say now, in maintaining that the criticism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, was unfair, that it is really in the interests of the family unit, including the child, I am quite sure on which side of the fence I come down.
There are technical issues to be discussed and very complicated ones, as we discovered earlier this afternoon. When one has thrashed them out, one has to face one or two questions. One of the questions was faced by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. What about the alleged integrity of the register? Of course it is a provision of the Perjury Act—I believe it is Section 4, but what does it matter?—that a person who, as matters stand, deliberately gives false information to the registrar is guilty of a technical offence, serious or less serious according to the nature of the circumstances. That will remain the law whether or not my noble and learned friend's amendment is accepted, and in whatever form the Bill ultimately passes into law, as it ultimately will.
However, I must underline what I tried to persuade the House about on previous occasions; namely, that the registrar, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, has no inquisitorial powers. It is the duty of the registrar to ascertain, so far as he can from the informants, whoever they may be, who are in the Act, the parentage of the child and to write it down. However, he cannot intrude into the privacy of the bedroom. I tried to persuade noble Lords that that was true. I am afraid that some noble Lords were rather shocked by what I said but, with great respect, I shall repeat some of it again.
We know from recent biographies—I cited the biographies of the late Anthony Eden and the late Diana Cooper—that it is a fact that the register, of which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning regards himself the guardian, is not a record of biological fact at all. It is a record of what the informants, who are usually the parents, say is biological fact. In fact, the truth of the matter—and we may as well face facts whether or not we regard this as a great Christian issue—is that AID is taking place. The parents—using the word in the social rather than the biological sense—register the child as their own and nobody can find out whether or not they are telling the truth. Therefore all the rhetoric about the sanctity and integrity of the register is purely unenforceable and purely unpoliceable.
One must face that fact because it is a fact, but there is a biological reason to be added to that fact which was given by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. If AID is practised, the parents are encouraged to continue their normal sexual intercourse. If the only fault is in the male and the sperm count is low, or if, as I am told is frequently the case—although I hate to deal with rather distasteful physical details—the sperm of the husband is mixed with the sperm of the donor in certain types of fertilisation, one simply does not know whether the child was engendered by artificial insemination or not.

553
I am not arguing very high questions of Christian morals but I did say, and I do say to the right reverend Prelate and to my noble and learned friend whose integrity and sincerity I respect enormously, that I believe that the social father of the late Diana Cooper or the late Anthony Eden, who registered a child of whom he perhaps did not believe he was the biological parent, performed a courageous act. He preferred to keep his marriage alive and to avoid a scandal. If I am told that that was a technical act of perjury, of course, as Lord Chancellor, I cannot condone it. If I were asked what God thinks about it, I might give a very different answer from that which my noble and learned friend has given or that which the right reverend Prelate would give. But I will not pursue this matter on this occasion.
We are dealing with a situation in which the integrity of the register is an accurate record of what the informants have said. Incidentally, if anybody takes the interest to look at my own birth certificate he will not find very much to show who I am. It has caused me embarrassment throughout my life. My father and my mother registered me as a male child but did not give me any first names for the very good reason that I was not christened for another month and a half and they had not decided on what first names I should have. So when I had to join the army I had to get two aged aunts, who are now unfortunately deceased, to say that I was the person referred to in the birth certificate.
When we are talking about the integrity of the register I really think we have to be a little more sensible than some of the more rhetorical speeches to which we have listened.
There is another fact which I must seek to impress upon my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I do not think he fully realised how contrary the amendment which he has proposed is to the principle contained in the Warnock report on this subject. The effect of that was, in paragraph 4.25, that the laws should be changed so as to permit the husband to be registered as the father. I know that that is something which my noble and learned friend hates, and which the right reverend Prelate hates, but that was what the Warnock Committee said about it, and this is what Clause 27 says about it if the father and the mother consent to that situation.
I have to put this rather plainly. When I had to say what was to be in the Bill or what was not to be in the Bill I had a difficult task to perform because obviously we were faced with a matter on which sensitive feelings would be expressed, and also we were faced with the fact that the Warnock report contained a great number of other recommendations which obviously could not be inserted into a Bill of this kind which deals with the status of children who would otherwise be born out of wedlock.
The line I took, which I have defended before and therefore will not defend at great length again, was that we must deal with the status of AID children. We would exclude titles of honour. I think that my noble and learned friend was slightly misleading the House by inadvertence when he talked about Peeresses producing children in adultery. That could not happen under the Bill, though no doubt it can happen outside
554
the Bill. This has nothing to do with the Bill because that is expressly excluded from the Bill.
The Government have issued a consultation document because we felt that on a great number of issues the Warnock Committee thought legislation was necessary but that public opinion was insufficiently informed. Those matters have been contained in a number of other amendments and therefore I will not enumerate them at length, but they are far from clear, for example, on whether and how AID children should have access to information about their genetic origins, and if so what information should be made available to them, when, and in what circumstances.
Comments from a wide range of interested bodies—medical, social work, child care, as well as legal organisations—are being invited, but I would respectfully say that I chose the right line. I know that the biblical example of Agag is not altogether a happy one for one who walks the same delicate path, because Agag came to a rather sticky end, but I hope that on this occasion the House will not think I have been either irresponsible or unjust.
I said on Second Reading and I say again now that the more subtle, difficult and controversial matters contained in the consultation document should be left because the issues are not clear-cut, but that here we do have a clear-cut issue. Are we to provide that a consensually engendered child by the process known as AID should be treated as a child of marriage? To that I say yes, and my noble and learned friend and the right reverend Prelate, I think basically in their heart of hearts, say no. By one procedural amendment after another they have tried to say no to the question without actually saying no bluntly, which is what they mean.
This matter is now reaching its terminal stages in this House, and I am of the same opinion as I was at the beginning.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friends on my Front Bench, but I wonder whether I might ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the following question. He spoke with great approbation of Anthony Eden's father for registering his son as being his own child. Would he speak of him with the same approbation if the father, when he did that, had already been created the Earl of Avon, so that his son would succeed to the title?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is rather hypothetical, but all I know is that that is what would have happened. I was citing the example not for the purpose of entering into a dialogue on moral theology, either with the right reverend Prelate or with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, but to show that the register itself is a correct record of what is told to the registrar, who has no policing powers, and that is a fact that one knows very well. I have given two examples of that very frequent fact. I would far rather steer clear of moral theology on this occasion. I teased the right reverend Prelate rather irreverently on a previous occasion, but I will never do it again.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to bring the discussion back to the real point, which is the integrity and reliability of the birth certificate and the birth register. I agree entirely that if a child is conceived by artificial insemination to the knowledge and consent of both parents it should be treated as the child of those parents in law and in every way just the same as an adopted child.
In the case of an adopted child the birth register is correct. The truth is told by the partners who bore the child as to who was the father and who was the mother. The birth certificate is absolutely correct in every case of adoption, but when a child is adopted there is a special procedure whereby the child can be put down on the adopted children's register. The child can have access to that, so that he may know who his real father and mother were; so the child of an adoption is not only brought up knowing the adoptive parents but at the age of 18 can get to know about his origins. So adoption is an entirely different case.
I would add this: under the statute there is statutory provision for proper counselling to both parents about what is involved, and they must freely consent and understand what they are doing. There is no such provision here. That is the distinction.
The noble and learned Lord said that after they have tried to have a child for years without success they can go for artificial insemination but if they go on having sexual intercourse they cannot say whether it is their child. Of course they know perfectly well that it is not their child, that it is an AID child. If there were any doubt about it they could have a blood test, which could be done immediately. So I say that they are telling a lie on the birth certificate and they are doing wrong.
I insist once more on the integrity and reliability of the birth certificate, whatever those historical characters which my noble and learned friend mentioned may have done. I do not care what they have done. But if they have told a lie I am going to condemn it, whatever the motive. I put aside the question of knowingly telling a lie. Concerning the supposed cross-examination by the registrar, of course he will not do that. The statute provides that if questions are not answered correctly the registrar is entitled to ask questions to get information. The Perjury Act provides for that situation. I do not say that the registrar should cross-examine, but he should make gentle inquiries if he has any doubt at all about the matter.
All those points go by the board. Let us suppose an entry is made as I say it should be on the birth certificate—"No known father". What harm does that do to the child? What harm does it do to anybody? A shortened birth certificate can be given so that no one will know. As the departmental manuscript says, the man is not to record himself as the father unless that fact can be linked with the Registrar-General. I have put the case. I stand for the truth. I ask your Lordships to support my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 16 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not Content".
Noble Lords: Not Content.
The Lord Chancellor: The Not Contents have it.
Lord Denning: Content.
The Lord Chancellor: It is rather late, is it not, my Lords? When the trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? However, clear the Bar.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 182.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Longford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Pender, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Phillips, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Denning, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fitt, L.

Somers, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Dundee, E.

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allerton, L.

Elton, L.

Attlee, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff, L.

Ferrier, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Blake, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blyth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Glanusk, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenamara, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Braye, B.

Gowrie, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brookes, L.

Gray, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Grey, E.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Grimond, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cawley, L.

Hampton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvington, L.

Colyton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hesketh, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Heycock, L.

Cowley, E.

Hives, L.

Cox, B.

Holderness, L.

Craigavon, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Hunter of Newington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Derwent, L.

Jeger, B.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Dowding, L.

Kemsley, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Renwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kimberley, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rochdale, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Rochester, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rodney, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rugby, L.

Listowel, E.

St. Davids, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Savile, L.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Long, V.

Selborne, E.

Lyell, L.

Shackleton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Shannon, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McNair, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Mar, C.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marley, L.

Stedman, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strange, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swinton, E.

Mayhew, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mersey, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Meston, L.

Teynham, L.

Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mountevans, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Moyne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mulley, L.

Vivian, L.

Munster, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Newall, L.

Whaddon, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Orkney, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Portland, D.

Winstanley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Clause 27 [Artificial insemination]:
6 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 18, line 14, at end insert—
(", and
(c) had, together with the other party to that marriage, received counselling so as to ensure that they had full understanding of what was involved, and had freely and unconditionally agreed to the artificial insemination of the woman,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this provision I have inserted a requirement that the two parties shall not be bound to all the duties of parents unless they have been counselled; that is, given full information and explanation of what is involved. That is by statute what applies in the case of adopting parents. By statute it is required that, before they are bound to all the duties of parents, they are to receive counselling; that is, full information and explanation of what is involved. I suggest that this applies equally and even more importantly in the case of an artificially inseminated child. If one considers the husband, who has agreed to artificial insemination, surely an explanation should be given to him that he will have
558
landed upon him a child of whom he knows nothing, who he has not conceived and of whom he will not even know the name. Furthermore, he will be bound for all his days to the duties of father in respect of it, and he cannot withdraw from that.
In the case of adoption the situation is entirely different. The Department of Health and Social Security has said that there should be counselling for the parents. Even by our own law in the House of Lords recently, an individual who is to undergo an operation must be told by the doctor, before he consents to that operation, what is involved in order that his consent is properly obtained and he knows and can challenge the judgment.
There is no provision in Clause 27 for any counselling or explanation to the parents of what is involved; in particular for the husband to know what he will be landed with in future. The purpose of the amendment is to underline that the parents are not bound to duties to the child, particularly the father, unless full explanation has been given to them, as in the case of an adopted child; and to effect the recommendations of the DHSS in this regard.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord seeks in the amendment to introduce two new elements in Clause 27—compulsory counselling and clear positive evidence of unconditional consent. In a sense he is seeking to introduce what already happens as a matter of practice. To some extent therefore, it might be asked: why not make it a matter of law? Equally, it can be said that it is not necessary because almost certainly it happens in every case in any event.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its guidelines requires the consent of the mother and her husband. One has to keep remembering in these circumstances that the identity of the donor is unknown to the mother and her husband and the donor will know nothing of them. Therefore, if the law deprives the child of a lawful father (that is, the husband who consents to artificial insemination) the law cannot in reality provide the child with an identifiable natural father who wants the child, the natural father being an unknown donor who is providing his sperm only and nothing else.
The Law Commission considered whether it was necessary to require the positive consent of the husband or simply to provide, as the Bill provides, a rebuttable presumption that the husband has consented. The Law Commission, the Bill and indeed, the committee under the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, all came down in favour of the rebuttable presumption solution. It is a matter of balance. On balance, I suggest to your Lordships that that was correct. The presumption of the husband's consent is rebuttable and, therefore, it is still open to him to say, "I was cheated, my consent was unfairly obtained. I did not give my true consent". However, it is not open, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it should not be open, to him to go back on a freely entered-into commitment to his wife and to the unborn child to stand in loco parentis to that child.
In practical terms, those disputes could happen many years later. As the Law Commission said in its first report at page 175:

559
"It would be hard on a child whose paternity and status has been settled for some years if, in the course of his parents' marriage breaking down, his legal paternity depended upon proof of consent to an operation years before or upon the existence of a particular document. In our view the burden of proof should rest upon the husband to show that he did not consent".
Paraphrasing that, to allow arguments about the technical validity of the consent could expose the child to the risk of legal limbo, having no lawful father under Clause 27, if enacted, and no identifiable biological father. It is not the fault of the child that it was produced in this way. The clause unamended gives the child the chance of certainty in its status and should be left unamended.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, speak, I often want to say that I concur and have nothing to add. However, this is the most appallingly unjust suggestion that one could imagine, bolstered by false analogies and leading to a totally unjust conclusion.
Let me first deal with the false analogy. Once a child is adopted he is an adopted child except in very curious and unlikely circumstances. You cannot deprive him of his status once he has been adopted by simply going back on the past and saying that the provisions of the statute which led to his adoption were not fully complied with.
Secondly, suppose one deals with what my noble and learned friend describes as the medical analogy. Of course, it is true that in American law fully informed counselling and consent has become a legal shibboleth. And, of course, it has led to the whole practice of the contingency fee in relation to medical negligence, a tremendous growth of speculative litigation, and vast increases in premiums—but for what purpose? It is for the purpose of giving a person who has had an operation damages if it goes wrong.
What kind of analogy can that be to the status of a child when consent has been given to its artificial insemination by both its parents? This is the kind of legal thinking of Alice in Wonderland. I really think that my noble and learned friend should think twice before putting amendments of this kind on the Marshalled List.
Let me make two or three things absolutely plain. I am, of course, clear in my mind that before a couple takes the step of engendering a child by virtue of artificial insemination they should take great care to see that they are aware of the legal implications, and see whether they are aware of the medical implications. But if they do that and then consent, and six years later their marriage breaks down and a child is born, my noble and learned friend thinks that that child should be labelled a bastard for the rest of his life. Do your Lordships think that is just! I do not.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, many of the objections raised both by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, can be avoided if, after the AID child is born, the husband adopts it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, although reference has been made to the present practice of the Royal
560
College, that applies to properly-licensed clinics which they allow and no doubt supervise. The Warnock Report said that any clandestine practice of artificial insemination would be very harmful. It could be done without any of those safeguards under this clause. It could be done without any explanation or understanding at all.
All I want to secure is what the Warnock Report and the Department of Health recommended. They recommended that they should be told all that is involved so that they fully understand it, just the same as for adopting parents. That was all my amendment sought. The fact that the Royal College secures proper consent seems not to detract from the general principle; namely, that we ought to see in statute that those involved understand and appreciate what is going on.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Denning Lord Denning had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
Page 18, line 19, at end insert ("save that the other party to the marriage shall not be allowed to enter his name on the register of births as the father unless the entry can be linked by the Registrar General with a central record of such births.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this follows the amendment on which we had a Division. I referred to it at the time. In those circumstances I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not come into effect until there is established a statutory licensing body for clinics or agencies providing AID services with regulations governing their conduct.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this follows a recommendation of the Warnock Report. I mentioned it just now. The Warnock Report was quite clear that the clandestine practice of artificial insemination would be very harmful to society. It recommended that there should be a statutory licensing body—that was the essential feature of the recommendation—which could supervise the clinics, could see that they kept proper records of the donors and all those receiving, and also that those records could be sent to a central register so that children could trace who were their real parents.
The Warnock Committee felt that this statutory licensing body was so important that to provide artificial insemination without a licence should be a criminal offence punishable by the criminal law. I am therefore seeking to enforce the most important recommendation of the committee that there should be a statutory licensing system. That is the object of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, surely this amendment is premature. It is right that the Warnock Committee recommended a statutory licensing body but there is no certainty that it will in fact come into existence. It is simply one of the options. The consultation paper

561
recently issued by the DHSS makes that absolutely clear.
The other possible option is really a continuation of what happens now—that is to say, regulation on a voluntary basis by the various professional bodies. There is no certainty that there will be a statutory licensing body, and accordingly the expression should not go into this Bill.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It seems to me, moreover, that this amendment goes far beyond the purpose and scope of Clause 27. We already have AID. I do not know whether the amendment is intended to stop AID until the statutory licensing body is set up, or whether it is merely intended to have the result that the provisions of Clause 27, which are consequential upon the existence of AID now, do not follow.
If it is the first, then it certainly goes far beyond the scope of this Bill because it seeks to stop the practice of AID, and this Bill is concerned simply with the question of legitimation. If, on the other hand, it seeks to have the effect that Clause 27, which is a reasonable and necessary consequence of the existence of AID in relation to legitimation, should be held up pending the setting up of the licensing body, then I cannot see the purpose of that or how anyone would gain anything from it.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I have already indicated that I strongly support the noble and learned Lord on this point. It would mean that the section would not come into force until Parliament had had the opportunity to consider the matter with the help of the Warnock Report and whatever has come up in the course of this debate, and then legislate in such a way that such a statutory licensing body is established. The acceptance of this amendment would not stop the practice of AID in the meantime. It would simply mean that AID continues to be used under exactly the same conditions as it is now.
My noble and learned friend Lord Silkin said that this provision would be going beyond the scope of this Bill, which is concerned with legitimation. But if we look through the Bill we find again and again all through that it deals with matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimation. There is no reason why it should not again go beyond it in this case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly both with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin. I really do not need to say very much. I have explained during the course of this amendment not once now but five times what I have done and why I have done it. I felt it was an injustice, in a Bill which tried to remove the stigma of illegitimacy, that the issue raised by AID should not be faced to the extent of giving legitimacy to children engendered in this way consensually between the two parents.
I have never said a word against the recommendations of Warnock, which were in favour of a statutory body. What I have said and say again, for the fifth or sixth time, is that they will have to wait until we legislate on the ramifications of Warnock, which are very numerous. We have issued a consultation paper
562
asking for people's opinions, which are likely to be diverse, and on which we shall not get a consensus for some time. It is quite clear that whenever the date of the next general election will be, we cannot do that during this Parliament. Viewing, if I may say so without any degree of criticism, the various manifestos which seem to be emerging from my own party and other parties in the race, it does not look to me as if it will happen in the first Session of next Parliament either.
The truth is—I think my noble and learned friend ought to look into his conscience and face it—that my noble and learned friend does not like Clause 27. He has adopted one device after another to prevent it coming into effect and this is only another such device. This is a wrecking amendment and I ask the House to reject it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble and learned friend says that I am trying to wreck this. I am not trying to wreck it. I am trying to get artificial insemination put on a proper basis so that the parties concerned properly consent. In the light of the opinion of my noble and learned friend, and, I am afraid, of many others who are against me, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Children of void marriages]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 21—I shall be speaking also Amendment No. 22—I should say that if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 23.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 18, line 30, leave out ("after") and insert ("for").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in vacating my place on the Woolsack, I am speaking now to Amendments No. 21, 22 and 24. I undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to move on Third Reading amendments in response to an amendment which he moved at cols. 683 and 684 of Hansard. This is to give effect to the undertaking I then gave him when he withdrew his own amendment to Clause 28.
The purpose and effect of the amendment is to ensure that a child born as a result of fertilisation in vitro is within the ambit of Section 1 of the Legitimacy Act 1976, which, in certain circumstances, legitimates the children of void marriages. It is right that a child born in this way should come within the scope of Section 1. The amendments bring the drafting of Clause 28 into line with Clause 1(4), in which a distinction is drawn between "insemination" and "conception", thereby making it clear that the latter refers only to creation outside the mother's body, whether in vitro or by some other technique. The matter was ventilated by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, before. I undertook to put down these technical amendments and I now beg to move Amendment No. 21, with which are married Amendments Nos. 22 and 24. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting down this

563
amendment, which, as he says, springs from an amendment that I put down at Report stage. It extends Clause 28 to include children who resulted from in vitro fertilisation because the noble and learned Lord reached the decision, under pressure from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to extend the Bill that far but no further.
In my opinion, the present amendment unfortunately does not have the effect I wanted it to have or the effect that surely it must have. The clause deals with the children of marriages that are declared void. The intention of the Bill we are amending is that if conception takes place between a man and a woman who have gone through a form of marriage and if that marriage is subsequently found to be void for any reason, then the child is fully legitimate if at the time when conception took place either of the parents believed that the marriage was valid.
We now have to extend that so that the same principle will apply if in vitro fertilisation is used. The way it would work, if the amendment of the noble and learned Lord were accepted in the form in which it is drafted, is that the child would be legitimate if at the time of its conception either the mother or the father thought that the marriage was valid. This extension is being made to cover in vitro fertilisation. In in vitro fertilisation, as I have pointed out already, conception takes place at the time when the ova and semen are put together in the dish. The concepti are then frozen and may be used at any time in the next couple of decades. This means that one parent has to think the marriage was valid, not at the time when the act of intercourse took place but at the time when the fertilisation took place in the dish.
It seems quite clear that this is not the time that matters. If the fertilised eggs are frozen and then both parents realise that the marriage is void and if after the marriage has been found to be void the concepti are inserted into the wife's womb, there is no possible reason why such a child should be considered legitimate. That is what the position would be if this amendment were to be accepted.
My Amendment No. 23 is put down as an alternative to the noble and learned Lord's amendment. In my amendment what matters is that at the time of the insertion of the conceptus one or other parent has to think that the marriage is valid. Surely that is what matters, and surely that is how it should be. I therefore hope that your Lordships will decide that my Amendment No. 23 is to be preferred to that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought I was doing the noble Lord a favour by accepting the principle of his amendment. I still prefer the simple thought that if when the vital act takes place people think that their marriage is valid and it turns out subsequently to be void, the interests of justice demand that the child should not be labelled illegitimate or born out of wedlock. I stand by that. I am beginning to think it is impossible to please the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 18, line 31, leave out from ("be") to ("conception") in line 32 and insert ("substituted the words "the insemination resulting in the birth or, where there was no such insemination, the child's")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I cannot, for the reasons I have given, call Amendment No. 23.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 18, line 42, leave out from first ("the") to ("conception") in line 43 and insert ("insemination resulting in the birth or, where there was no such insemination, the child's")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 24, and I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 25, the next amendment, I may be wrong but I had the idea that that was probably consequential upon Amendment No. 23. If I am wrong about that, the noble Lord will no doubt move his amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I do not intend to move Amendment No. 25.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 36, line 44, at end insert—
("20A. In section 20(6) of that Act, for the words "blood samples" there shall be substituted the words "bodily samples".
20B. In section 21 of that Act, for the words "blood sample", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "bodily sample" and for the words "blood tests" there shall be substituted the words "scientific tests".
20C.—(1) Section 22(1) of that Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) For the words "blood sample", "blood samples" and "blood tests", in each place where they occur, there shall be respectively substituted the words "bodily sample", "bodily samples" and "scientific tests".
(3) After paragraph (a) there shall he inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) prescribe the bodily samples to be taken;".
(4) In paragraph (d) after the words "any such illness" there shall be inserted the words "or condition or undergone any such treatment".
(5) After paragraph (i) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(j) make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of case."
20D. In section 23 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (2), for the word "paternity" there shall be substituted the word "parentage"; and
(b) in subsection (3), for the words "blood sample" there shall be substituted the words "bodily sample".
20E. In section 24 of that Act, for the words "blood sample" there shall be substituted the words "bodily sample".")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 26 and I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before putting the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, which I propose to do now, there has been considerable dispute as to whether I should say what I am about to say, and it has now been decided that I must say it. 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 Family Law Reform 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.
The reason I did not say that before was that the matter was in dispute. It is now clear that I must say those words, and they are said. I now beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In putting the Motion, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have assisted and contributed to the various discussions. I hope they feel that on the whole the Bill has served a useful purpose and that we have sent it down to the other place in a better condition than it was when originally introduced.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to echo the last words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think this is a much improved Bill and certainly a good deal of the improvement flows from the persistence of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken in putting forward his amendments. I hope he will forgive me if I describe them as semantic amendments: I do not use the word "semantic" in any derogatory sense.
I want to say two words more. First, I would reiterate the expression of praise that I gave to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading on having the courage to bring forward Clause 27. I think that was highly desirable and it represented a great improvement on what the Bill might have been.
Secondly, I want to remind the House that the Bill as it now stands still does not deal with the question of citizenship which I raised in Committee. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has written a very detailed letter to me explaining the existing situation on citizenship. I have not thought it right to come back to the issue since the Committee stage, as we dealt with it very thoroughly on that occasion. However, I must express the hope that in another place the issue of citizenship will be dealt with. I believe very strongly that the failure to deal with it is not in any sense the fault of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who expressed great sympathy on that point. I hope therefore that, although this is a Lord Chancellor's Bill, the Home Office will be sufficiently interested and involved, some eight years after Mr. Raison expressed the view that citizenship should be included in such a Bill, to ensure that an amendment is so drafted that it does form part of the Bill.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may join in saying that this was a good Bill when it was introduced into your Lordships' House and it remains a good Bill after its passage. I should like also to join in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for the
566
obvious thought, time and trouble he has put into this Bill. It is particularly good for the lawyers to encounter such an advocate of linguistic clarity as the noble Lord in matters of this sort. However, I have to say that until this Bill started its passage through your Lordships' House I thought I understood the facts of life. There were moments, particularly after 3 o'clock this afternoon, when I was not so sure.
Clause 27, which has taken up so much time during the passage of this Bill, remains unscathed and indeed we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for persevering in the arguments and not giving way to the temptation—which must have existed at least at some stage—to have let the clause go. Clause 27, whatever its merits, does not detract from the worth of the body of the Bill, which of course clarifies the rights, duties and status of parents and brings up to date the status and rights of children.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said, a gap still remains. The Bill does not deal with the question of nationality and citizenship which he raised at Committee stage. I will not repeat the arguments for or endeavour to rebut the arguments against. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated his sympathy for what was said in support of the amendment at Committee stage. I hope that sympathy will be sustained and will show itself in some practical result. The problem of stateless and potentially stateless children will not go away. One accepts that this is a complex area of the law but, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, it has been considered for a very long time. Surely in the interests of the children and of family unity and unification the problem must be tackled sooner rather than later. For that reason I hope that we are not saying goodbye to this Bill but simply "au revoir".
Lord Denning: My Lords, no one is going to thank me. I would just say that I have thought it my duty to try to bring this Clause 27 into accord with the recommendations of the Warnock Report. I have clearly failed in that. I only hope that when the general review of this subject is undertaken eventually the recommendations of the Warnock Report will find a place in legislation in your Lordships' House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in welcoming the Bill even more heartily than I did on Second Reading, I should like to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, for yet again bringing forward the Law Commission reform of family law legislation. Its record is outstanding when one considers the body of legislation that has been produced in the last few years. My noble and learned friend has not only done that service; he also makes our debates habitually exciting by his interventions. Perhaps they are a little bruising if one is the immediate object. However, when one listens, one can enjoy them wholeheartedly.
On Second Reading, while the Bill was generally welcomed, anxiety was expressed that by virtually removing the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children we were derogating from the state of marriage. Those anxieties seem to me, as I said at the time, entirely justified. I entirely agree, on the other hand, that the worst way of reinforcing the state of

567
marriage would be to penalise, as we have done up to now, children who are born out of wedlock through no fault of their own. We must find other ways of reinforcing the state of marriage.
I also suggested on Second Reading two such ways which I shall not repeat, as they would almost certainly be out of order at this stage. However, I congratulated my noble and learned friend earlier on his fostering of the Law Commission reports on family law and the Bills which were drafted. I venture to remind him and all your Lordships that there is one conspicuously outstanding matter, which is the Bill which was drafted as the Matrimonial Homes Co-ownership Bill. That Bill, if it could be brought into legislation, would reinforce the position of the wife, who is the very linchpin of the family, in the household. I venture to suggest that it would go a long way to assuage the anxieties expressed on Second Reading.
I desire to mention only one other matter, which is Clause 27. I take a view contrary to that of my noble and learned friend and of other noble Lords who have spoken on that clause. I hope that it will be removed when the Bill goes to the other place. There was a great deal of heat and noise when we debated Clause 27. However, there was rather less cogency of argument and rather more heat than light. What is plain is that what was claimed for the clause—namely, that it would benefit children who are born by artificial insemination—no longer stands up to examination.
My noble and learned friend has said repeatedly, cogently and rightly that the present practice is to register such children as legitimate. Although he says, as he is bound to, that as head of the judiciary he cannot condone what is certainly a crime, nevertheless I think he carried your Lordships with him in the contention that one cannot say that the parents in such cases are acting wrongly. Therefore, all that will happen is that children who are at present registered as legitimate children will continue to be so registered, but they will now be registered lawfully. That seems to me to isolate the one argument in favour of Clause 27, which was the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Report. He said that it is highly undesirable to have legislation which is flouted. We must face the fact that the registration of AID children as legitimate children of those who have arranged for donation is a flouting of the law.
One must put that matter in proportion. I compare it with the legislation under the Shops Act. A generation ago the Gowers Committee described the shops legislation as bringing the law into contempt. Quite recently, the Auld Committee repeated in slightly different language that it is bringing the law into disrepute. Although that is a very strong case compared to the violations of this law which take place, as we know it is not generally known and it does not strike one as being as flagrant as it does in the case of the shops legislation. Therefore, although I give full weight to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one has to weigh that against the argument of the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Birmingham and the Bishop of London that it is most inconvenient to legislate over part of the Warnock ground in advance of considering the repercussions. In effect, we are preempting some of the decisions. Although I recognize
568
one argument in favour of Clause 27, I do not think the other arguments stand up to examination, and on balance, greatly as I welcome the Bill, I think it would be much better without Clause 27. As I say, I hope that that clause will be removed.
I hope that that does not derogate from my expression of admiration for the way my noble and learned friend has conducted this Bill, on which he has proved himself a master and delighted us with his debating skills.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, having occupied so much of your Lordships' time, I shall speak for only a few seconds. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that nobody would thank him for his part in this debate. I should like to thank him. I should like to thank him for the amendments he put down and the way he has spoken to them, as well as for the help and encouragement which he has given to me. I extend my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is sitting behind him. I should also like to express my appreciation to my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Meston, for their kind words. I also thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his patience and forbearance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships have already heard too much from me and I shall therefore be brief in what I have to say. I thank all noble Lords and all noble and learned Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. Lest the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, should be under any misapprehension, I was very glad for the vigorous way in which he put forward the point of view which clearly represented a strand with which I happen not to agree. It enabled the House to give what I believe was an emphatic vote on the subject. It would be a very bad day for this House if such an expression of opinion was rendered impossible by people who felt strongly on a subject not speaking and not voting. I am just as grateful to the noble and learned Lord as to anybody else.
The other thing I wish to say arises out of what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. A document is in circulation. I am enabled to say this by my noble and learned friend's remarks, which have been sent to me more than once, suggesting that the Bill undermines the institution of marriage. If I thought that for an instant I should never have brought it forward. I want now to be painfully explicit to those not in this Chamber, because the argument has not been presented more than once in this Chamber throughout the whole passage of the Bill. Illegitimacy—that is to say; birth out of wedlock—is obviously due to human intercourse outside of wedlock. That may be due to a number of causes. It can be due to deliberate false thinking about the nature of marriage and the desirability of bringing up children within it. We have seen cases of popular stars almost flaunting this while the Bill has been going through the House. It can be the result of total irresponsibility resulting in promiscuous unions. It can be the result of rape. It can be the result of adultery.
In none of these cases do I support or believe in these things. But let me point out that if anybody troubles to

569
read what is in the Bill he will see no single clause where either rape, consensual adultery, lust or deliberate procreation of children outside marriage could be affected one way or another. The motivation of such actions, good, bad or indifferent, is wholly outwith the purview of the Bill, which is designed solely to do an act of justice to those who are suffering from injustice at the present time. I am delighted with the emphatic support which it has received from all quarters of the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Finance Bill
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this Bill is to validate the practice the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office have adopted since 1981–82 in calculating relevant and total expenditure for block grant and rate limitation purposes. The Bill further provides for the practice to continue on a proper basis for the remaining years of the present system, and sets rate and precept limits for 1987–88. It deals also with a much lesser problem in Scotland. I shall endeavour to explain the background to the problem before describing briefly the provisions of the Bill.
Although many noble Lords will be fully conversant with the procedures and technology of local government finance, it may be helpful if I begin by explaining the concepts of relevant and total expenditure. "Relevant expenditure" is essentially all the expenditure of local authorities less income such as fees and charges. The Secretary of State must take this into account in determining the total amount of grant which should go to local authorities each year. "Total expenditure" is a narrower concept. It is broadly relevant expenditure less income by way of specific and supplementary grants such as police grant and national parks supplementary grant. An authority's total expenditure, therefore, is the amount which it finances from rate support grants, rate or precept income, and balances; it is the amount which is eligible for block grant. Neither relevant nor total expenditure is a measure of gross spending.
Total expenditure is taken into account in determining grant related poundages, multipliers, and, perhaps most importantly, the individual entitlements to grant of each local authority. Total expenditure also has an important role in rate limitation. The Secretary of State selects authorities for rate limitation if their total expenditure is excessive. The expenditure levels he determines are levels of total expenditure and he calculates rate limits from these. Having clarified that point, I should also say something about local authority funds and accounts. Every local authority is required by statute to keep a general rate fund or its equivalent into which receipts are paid and from which liabilities are discharged. Each will also maintain, although in this case not so required by statute, an account of its main revenue transactions often called a rate fund revenue account. Depending on the nature of the authority, it will have a number of other named funds or accounts, some required by
570
statute, some not—for instance, the housing revenue account. This Bill stems from the relationship of the general rate fund and what I have just referred to as the rate fund revenue account to these other named funds and accounts.
In summarising the background to the Bill I would emphasise that the central issue is whether the general rate fund for the purposes of calculating relevant and total expenditure should be interpreted in the wide sense of treating all other funds and accounts, such as special funds, the housing revenue account and accounts of trading undertakings merely as subdivisions of the rate fund, or in the narrow sense of seeing the rate fund as a separate and distinct entity from these other funds and accounts. Under the wide interpretation, expenditure falling to be defrayed from the general rate fund is the entire expenditure of the authority but does not include internal contributions between funds and accounts. Under the narrow interpretation of the rate fund, its expenditure excludes expenditure charged directly to the other funds and accounts, but includes contributions to those funds and accounts.
Since the beginning of the present grant system the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office have adopted the narrow interpretation in line with the clearly expressed wishes of local government. What happened was as follows. From late 1979 the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which established block grant, was passing through Parliament. The Act defines relevant and total expenditure, on which block grant is paid, as expenditure,
"falling to be defrayed from the rate fund".
The issue of how to interpret this emerged clearly when draft grant claim forms for the first block grant settlement were sent to the local authority associations: The forms made it clear that the department envisaged using the wide interpretation for calculating authorities' entitlements.
The local authority associations were very concerned about the proposal to interpret references to the rate fund in the 1980 Act in this way. They argued that the narrow view of the rate fund was an equally possible interpretation of the Act and that the wide view was not consistent with accepted and sensible accounting practices. In considering the issue, the Government had to weigh up the two differing interpretations and the disruption to local authorities' accounting practices which would have stemmed from a decision to proceed with a wide view of the rate fund. The Government therefore decided to accept the strongly argued and unanimous views of the local authority associations and adopt a narrow definition for calculating grant entitlements under the 1981–82 rate support grant settlement, thus continuing what had been existing practice for many years under earlier legislation.
A circular letter to this effect was sent to local authorities on 13th February 1981. No queries were raised and the approach taken was generally welcomed. This decision was made on the basis that for 1982–83 the issue would be reconsidered with the associations. A paper was put to the local authority associations in April 1981. Given the unanimous acceptance of the interpretation adopted for 1981–82,

571
this proposed that the local authority approach to total expenditure should be continued for 1982–83 and suggested a study to look at the pros and cons of changing to the wider approach in the longer term.
The local authority associations continued however to press strongly the view that there should be no switch to the wide approach and that there was no need for any study to look at this alternative approach. The department agreed to put the issue on one side but indicated that it might come back to the group with proposals in future if they seemed necessary.
From then on, the Government operated the block grant system on the basis of the narrow view of the rate fund. During that period there were a number of legal challenges, brought on a variety of grounds, to the Secretary of State's decisions on rate support grant and rate limitation. But in those proceedings no legal point was taken against the narrow view. Nor did local government auditors question the practice.
The issue re-emerged last year when it was discovered that a number of returns of expenditure from local authorities did not conform to normal practice on expenditure. Several authorities had decided to show contributions to special funds, even though they appeared to have a deficit on the rate fund revenue account and there was apparently no liability for which the money was being set aside. One authority had decided that in 1984–85 transfers from a special fund should not count as income reducing expenditure, even though, in a previous year, it had counted transfers to special funds as expenditure. This was directly contrary to the approach which the Government had taken in 1981 at the request of the local authority associations.
It appeared that these devices were designed to increase block grant entitlement at the expense of other authorities. We estimate that the authorities concerned could gain a total of £38 million in grant as a result.
Although the practices had been accepted by the auditors in a number of cases, the Department of the Environment was very doubtful whether it could accept them as a basis for paying grant. If accepted it would have meant that the Government tolerated two completely opposite practices on the question of calculating total expenditure. That was clearly not on. The department has now written to the authorities concerned seeking an explanation of the figures submitted, and is in discussion with some of them.
Last September, in deciding how to respond to these cases, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment looked closely at the definitions of relevant and total expenditure. He was concerned that the accepted practice did not correspond to the statute. He decided that it was essential to seek the Attorney-General's view. The Attorney-General supported counsel's opinion that the treatment of total expenditure which the Government had operated at the request of the local authority associations was indeed incorrect in law. Transfers between funds and accounts within the rate fund should not count as expenditure. Expenditure should only take place when an authority has liabilities in the outside world and meets these from the general
572
rate fund. Any fund or account, whether statutory or non-statutory, which a council set up was simply a part of the rate fund earmarked for a particular purpose. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State received the advice of the Attorney-General in late October and the Government decided to take urgent action.
As I have explained, the Government had originally responded positively and constructively to the strongly held views of the local authority associations on the interpretation of expenditure, but in view of the cases which emerged last year and of the further legal advice the Government had no alternative but to legislate. Without such legislation, all past decisions which involved the concepts of total or relevant expenditure would have been in doubt. It would have been quite improper to take further decisions about rate support grant or rate limitation on the basis of accepted practice without securing the legal position. The Government came to Parliament in December as soon as they were able to present full proposals for handling the problem. It would have been quite irresponsible to come without such a solution and face local government with great uncertainty.
The Bill therefore allows the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to continue with the practice adopted to date in calculating relevant and total expenditure. The Bill will enable transfers to and from this account to be defined in a way which replicates current practice on expenditure; that is, that total expenditure should be the net expenditure of the rate fund revenue account.
Clause 1 of the Bill and Schedule 1 require authorities to keep a rate fund revenue account and to list any accounts which are separate from it. Clause 2 sets out the practices to be observed in compiling the account. Clause 3 defines relevant and total expenditure in relation to the rate fund revenue account. These clauses apply from the financial year 1987–88 onwards. Clause 4 validates all things done for rate support grant purposes since 1981. For 1981/82 and 1982/83 only the conclusive calculation of block grant remains to be completed before closing the books. The Bill provides that these calculations shall be done on the basis of the figures in the last supplementary reports made for those years.
For the years 1983/84 to 1986/87 outstanding supplementary reports are still to be made. The Bill provides that these shall be made on the same basis as reports for the years 1987/88 onwards. As I mentioned earlier, authorities have in practice kept what is usually called a rate fund revenue account. Clearly it is not possible retrospectively to require authorities to keep rate fund revenue accounts. The calculations will therefore be based on the notional existence of such an account.
I now turn to rate and precept limitation. Because of the need to pass this Bill the Government were unable to proceed with rate and precept limitation to the normal Rates Act timetable. The Bill therefore provides for rate and precept limits for designated authorities to be determined in accordance with a formula for each class of authority. The formulae contain broadly the same factors as are necessary to calculate rate and precept limits in normal procedures

573
and reflect, so far as is possible, the decisions which would have been taken under those procedures.
In setting the formulae, the Government took into account all the information they had about designated authorities, including in particular that from redetermination applications and the meetings about them. Authorities have already been informed of the limits which will result from the formulae. They will therefore be fully aware of these limits when they come to issue precepts and set rates, even if the Bill is not yet enacted.
Clause 6 of the Bill validates past decisions and actions on rate and precept limitation. Clauses 7 and 8 and Schedule 2 set out the formulae which will produce the rate and precept limits and provide for the implementation of those limits. In particular, Clause 8 provides that where an authority has fixed a rate or precept higher than its limit before the passing of the Act it must substitute a lower one. Under the normal Rates Act procedures, rates and precepts fixed above the limits set by the Secretary of State are similarly invalid.
It may assist your Lordships if I say a little more on the validation aspects of the Bill. Considerable discussion in another place centred on two issues—first, whether the validation in any sense concerned future decisions of the Secretary of State on rate support grant and rate limitation matters; and, secondly, the extent to which the past decisions were validated.
First, let me make quite clear that the Bill is not intended to validate any future decisions of the Secretary of State. When he comes to take decisions on the conclusive calculation of block grant for 1981–82 and 1983–83, on remaining supplementary reports for the years 1983–84,1984–85,1985–86 and 1986–87, and on 1987–88 and future years, all those decisions will be reviewable by the courts in the normal way. The position is exactly the same for all the future decisions on rate and precept limitation. While this Bill provides formulae in accordance with which the limits in 1987–88 are to be determined, the Secretary of State's determination of maximum limits will be reviewable by the courts so that if a limit was determined not in accordance with the appropriate formula it could be successfully challenged in the courts. Decisions on rate limitation for 1988–89 will be reviewable in the normal way and as in the past two years.
Turning to the past, Clauses 4(1) and 6(1) of the Bill validate anything done by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the relevant statutory provisions relating to rate support grant and rate and precept limitation. Clause 4(2) sets out the relevant provisions in relation to RSG. Clause 6(1) to (3) sets out the relevant provisions in relation to rate and precept limitation. Any challenge to these actions based on general principles of administration law will be of no avail.
The Opposition in another place have argued that these provisions are too wide and that the validation should be restricted to decisions relating solely to the definitions of relevant and total expenditure. The Government's sole aim in these provisions is to ensure that there is complete certainty about past decisions. The concepts of relevant and total expenditure are
574
endemic to the rate support grant and rate limitation systems. The decisions for rate support grant purposes which the Secretary of State takes under the relevant statutory provisions depend in one way or another on relevant and total expenditure. The Government believe that it would be quite wrong to leave room for argument about whether an issue was specifically related to the definition, or whether some other aspect of total or relevant expenditure was involved. We believe therefore that the validation that the Bill provides is both right and necessary.
Perhaps I should say something about the provisions of Clauses 4(6) and 6(4). These provide that the validation shall have effect notwithstanding any decision of a court (whether before or after the passing of this Act) purporting to have the contrary effect. Again, the purpose is to provide absolute certainty about what is being validated and what is not. The reference to
"before or after the passing of this Act"
is simply to ensure that judgments reached on the basis of existing statute but delivered after the passing of the Act are treated on the same basis as judgments delivered before the passing of the Act.
I hope that I have been able to convince your Lordships that here we are not concerned with some draconian act of retrospection. We are simply seeking to give certainty to past decisions. This legislation is urgent to enable Parliament to complete the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88, to make outstanding supplementary reports from previous years and to complete the 1987–88 round of rate limitation. It is essential that we put matters right as fast as possible in order to end uncertainty about grant entitlements for 1987–88 and allow authorities to plan their budgets and rates. That is why we have asked Parliament to consider this legislation on an urgent timetable.
Supplementary provisions in Schedule 3 allow the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales to announce firm intentions for the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement, and certain earlier supplementary reports, which can be laid before Parliament immediately on Royal Assent. The purpose here is to give authorities the maximum of certainty in setting their budgets and rates over the next two months. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced his intentions before Christmas, and the Secretary of State for the Environment did so on 13th January.
So far as concerns Scotland, Part II of the Bill deals with a considerably more limited difficulty. Clause 13 validates past actions of the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to the imposition of grant penalties. It allows him to continue for the future to take into account movements between the general fund and any special fund or account in the process of estimating a local authority's expenditure for the purpose of imposing grant penalties. Clause 14 provides that, for the future, the Secretary of State for Scotland may similarly take account of movements between the general rate fund and any special fund or account in taking decisions about selective action against any authority.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to ask what is the reason for this? What is the basis of it? Was it a mistake, or a misinterpretation? Or is this something completely new?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale may be allowed to deal with this particular aspect of the matter when he winds up the debate. It has come to light as a result of investigations into the position in England and Wales.
To conclude this very lengthy exposition—and I apologise for the time that it has taken but it is a very complicated matter—the principal effect of the Bill is to validate the practice of the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in calculating relevant and total expenditure over the past six years. It confirms that practice for the future. This is a longstanding and well established practice for which local government has consistently argued. In the light of the legal advice, the Government had no option but to legislate. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
7.15 p. m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her very speedy explanation of the Bill. It was certainly a race through all the clauses. This is the 14th local government Bill that this Government have brought to the House and the sixth which deals specifically with rate support grant, and yet another is on its way. The Rate Support Grants Bill had its Second Reading in another place just last Wednesday.
It was only on 31st October that the Local Government Act 1986 received Royal Assent. It was during the passage of that Bill through another place that the Minister said:
"We are about to pass a Bill which will clarify the law and make it what it was thought to be in a number of important … respects in relation to rate support grant settlements".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/86; col 151.]
On 16th December, less than two months after Royal Assent had been given, the Secretary of State made a statement that yet again we had to have a Bill to clarify the law and make it what it was thought to be.
Last Wednesday the inefficiency of some Labour authorities was made much of by a number of Tory Peers, but not many—in fact only one Back-Bencher—are speaking today on the gross incompetence of the Tory Government over their legislation on local government and the chaos and difficulties that their misdirected efforts have caused for treasurers and members of local authorities up and down the land. Councils of every political persuasion rightly object to what they have been subjected to by this Government.
I should like to know the cost of all this correcting legislation. Can the Minister tell us what that amounts to when he winds up? I reckon that it is a gross waste of public funds for which various Secretaries of State should feel responsible. That great mass of legislation (14 local government Bills), which has taken up
576
innumerable hours of debate in both Houses, is a direct consequence of the desire of Ministers to centralise and control the activities of more than 600 local authorities in England and Wales in the belief that civil servants and politicians at Westminster know best. That determination to centralise and control local government has caused a complex edifice of law to be built up to prescribe the financial policies of authorities and regulate the payment of grant to them.
Our criticism of this legislation is that it is overcentralised, too complicated for all except a few gifted individuals to understand, riddled with unfairness and capable of manipulation. I should like to make the position of the Opposition on this Bill perfectly clear, as did my honourable friends in another place. We realised that if actions taken by Government and local authorities since the 1980 and 1984 Acts were illegal because of misinterpretations of those Acts, the matter had to be put straight and we should have co-operated in putting through this Bill quickly. We had expected it to happen and that there would be a Bill of three or four clauses to do just that.
To us it is inexplicable why the Government have not done that. This Bill not merely puts the law right in relation to the calculation of total and relevant expenditure, which in itself is of advantage to local authorities and ratepayers; it also gives Ministers sweeping new powers in the definition of revenue expenditure. It imposes wholly unacceptable and general prohibitions on access to the courts for ratepayers and local authorities in relation to anything done by the Secretary of State on the calculation of RSG, and it suspends the Rates Act procedures so that local authorities selected by Ministers for rate limitation are not dealt with individually in terms of their circumstances and financial position but by arbitrary and universal formulae set out in the Bill. It is also deplorable that rate-capped councils are being denied the opportunities for negotiation under the present Act.
These are considerable objections. In the present situation we believe that the duty of Parliament is to ensure that Ministers obtain the legal cover that they need but that they do not obtain excessive powers which are not justified by circumstances or have immunities from proceedings in the courts which go far beyond what is reasonable and necessary. Therefore our objective is to ensure that substantial amendments are made to this Bill, and we hope that the Government will be responsible and reasonable in accepting them.
No doubt adding all these new powers was the cause of such delay in introducing the Bill. Although the Secretary of State said on 16th December during the Statement that he had first known of the illegality toward the end of October, it appeared from Second Reading that he was first aware of it at the end of September; yet no action was taken until this Bill had its First Reading in another place on 18th December.
The noble Baroness said that the Government took urgent action. It did not seem that urgent to us. The Bill was then rushed through. There is evidence of poor and hurried drafting. The Government tabled 40 amendments and added a new schedule in Committee which was taken on the Floor of the House. The Bill

577
was guillotined after two days. Ten clauses and three schedules were considered. Because of the operation of the guillotine, there was no Report stage. It is therefore all the more important that we should scrutinise the Bill with the utmost care.
I have said that we endorse the Government's view that putting the law right in relation to the calculation of the total and relevant expenditure was necessary. However, we are gravely concerned that Clause 2(4), as drafted, gives the Secretary of State wide powers to specify what income can be defined as revenue income to the rate fund revenue account for the purpose of reducing a council's expenditure and therefore maximising its block grant entitlement.
Many local authority treasurers are concerned about that provision. It is a new concept. There is uncertainty as to its impact on revenue income from internal funds and from outside the council. There is concern over the way in which ministerial decisions here could alter proper professional practices in relation to the treatment of capital revenue where there are different professional practices.
There has been no satisfactory explanation as to why the Government believe that they need that power. Without an acceptable explanation we believe that the provision should be deleted from the Bill. There is great concern over the provisions contained in Clause 4(6) and Clause 6(4). Clause 4(1) retrospectively validates anything done by the Secretary of State in calculating rate support grants since 1981. Clause 4(6) judge-proofs all those decisions by inserting the words:
"Subsection (1) above shall have effect notwithstanding any decision of a court (whether before or after the passing of this Act) purporting to have a contrary effect".
There is a serious dispute between Ministers and ourselves as to the scope and breadth of that provision. The noble Baroness spoke of that tonight. We believe that the words on the face of the Bill are clear. It is that anything done by the Minister in respect of RSG is protected from judicial review by the courts, and not just the action of Ministers, on the calculation of total revenue expenditure. We have consulted counsel, who supports our interpretation of the Bill. Mr. Ridley believed, however, that his Bill means something different.
When discussing the matter in another place on 19th January Mr. Ridley said:
"Where a matter has nothing to do with the definition of total expenditure or with the rate support grant calculation based on it, it is judiciable, but it might be better for the court to await the passage of the Bill so that it knows the definition of total expenditure. If the court prefers not to do that, it is perfectly possible for the case to proceed, but it will do so in the light of the fact that any decision which contravenes the definition of total expenditure in this Bill will later be proved invalid. However, if the matter is totally extraneous to total expenditure and is about something totally different like multipliers, which are not affected, it will be possible for the court to continue to determine the issue, just as it is possible for a court to decide that I was not wearing a seat belt when I should have been".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/87; col. 643.]
Our belief is that when making this comment Mr. Ridley did not understand his own legislation. We are strengthened in this view by his subsequent remarks on 21st January in which he fudged the issue and argued that as total and relevant expenditure were so interrelated with all other elements of RSG
578
calculation, it would be difficult for a court to disentangle the validation of calculation of total and relevant expenditure in the Bill from other issues that were being challenged by an authority.
The correct position is surely for Parliament to give legitimate protection to Ministers and civil servants from legal action on the incorrect calculations of expenditure that they have admitted. But it is essential that actions can continue against all other decisions, calculations and procedures. That distinction would preserve the proper role of the courts in interpreting legislation and scrutinising the exercise of powers by Ministers and prevent the blunderbuss validation of all past acts by Ministers which is unnecessary and offensive.
We are also seriously concerned about the position of rate-capped councils. A major contributory factor leading to the imposition of expenditure levels by formulae in primary legislation has been the Government's delay in bringing forward a Bill. I have already spoken about that delay.
We object strongly to the denial of appeal against rate-capping. Schedule 2 lays down formulae for rate limitation to apply to groups of authorities and the ILEA on its own. That replaces the appeal process against rate limits which would otherwise have been possible under the Rates Act 1984. At the time that Act was discussed, the Government pledged that the appeal process in the Act would be an essential safeguard against arbitrary decision taking by the Department of the Environment. Instead here different authorities are to be subjected to a standard formula. Parliament is being asked to decide the 1987–88 rate limitation decision without even seeing the figures.
Parliament cannot be assured, as it would be under the annual rate limitation order, that the limitations have been tailored to individual needs and are open to appeal. Authorities which met Ministers in November and December were given the misleading impression that redetermination would be taken seriously. There will be no redetermination.
It is damaging for authorities not to have their precise financial positions taken into account by government when making the approved expenditure limit. The formulae contained in the Bill were published in December, a full three months before the end of the financial year, and cannot therefore reflect the real outturn of expenditure for authorities or take into account movements in balances and contingency reserves, which are not usually known until just before the setting of the rate or precept. It is damaging for local authorities not to have an opportunity to have their individual circumstances examined in detail.
We shall introduce amendments which will free the Secretary of State from the constraint of fixed formulae—constraints which deny him, as much as they do local authorities, flexibility and discretion in the precise application of rate and precept limits. We hope to combine those with amendments which will allow a right of appeal for authorities so affected and which will limit the immunity from the decisions of the court to those which derive strictly from the legal misinterpretation as to total and relevant expenditure.

579
The bureaucratic mess which the Bill is intended to rectify is in a sense an inevitable consequence of the Rates Act 1984 and of the procedures for calculating and distributing block grant which flow from the powers granted to Ministers under the 1980 Act. Local authorities, voluntary associations, local authority associations and many parliamentarians have always criticised the procedures under those two Acts as being an unwarranted and unjustified incursion into the internal affairs of local authorities which are responsible to their electorates for the services that they administer, finance and choose to provide. The Government are reaping the consequences of erecting an over-complex and administratively unsupportable system of financial control in an attempt to impose central determination of policy in previously autonomous and formally independent units of government.
The local authority associations are naturally worried by the Bill. I understand that the ACC has not had disclosed to it the legal advice the Secretary of State received, and has been given no opportunity to discuss it. Clauses 1, 2 and 3, it says:
"are of particular concern as they contain greater powers of interference and control than are necessary to achieve the objects of the Bill".
It also questions the need for the wide powers contained in Clause 4.
The ADC is concerned at the poor drafting. It is confused by the references in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to "proper practices" juxtaposed with the proposed powers to enable the Secretary of State to specify types of expenditure. It says:
"The Bill's main focus should be on validating past actions, not introducing new areas of political conflict.".
I have concentrated on the reactions of the ACC and ADC as associations that are not Labour controlled. The AMA feels just as strongly. I hope that the Government may even now have some second thoughts about bestowing such wide powers on the Secretary of State, on the lack of judicial review, on retrospection and on the denial of appeal. Rights of local authorities, rights of individuals, indeed, are being seriously undermined.
I had a letter from the chief executive of Cambridge City Council—my own district authority—asking me to do what I could to remedy some of the Bill's shortcomings. He finished:
"The Bill just adds to the confusion, and could well be flawed—there has not been time for the Government to get it right as is evidenced by the plethora of Government amendments to their own Bills.
If you detect a note of despair in this letter you are probably right!".
I suspect that that is the state to which this Government have reduced very good and dedicated local government officers, and that is a shame.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I begin by expressing my regret that I cannot stay until the end of the debate. I shall not speak for very long. As noble Lords will realise, we did not expect the
580
Second Reading debate to start so late and I have a long-standing previous engagement.
May I first thank the noble Baroness for introducing a very complicated piece of legislation as clearly as it is possible to do. I should also like to say that I agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said. I believe that this new piece of legislation on local government finance is a sign of mismanagement by the present Government in their local government legislation. We were all aware late last summer and in the early autumn that something was wrong; that the Government's legal advisers had pointed out that essential elements in the rate support grant and rate limitation systems had been calculated in a way which conflicted with existing legislation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady David, I am amazed that the Government did not come out with a Statement until 16th December—a long time after they were aware that something had to be done. As a result, in order to clear up the problem for 1987–88, a piece of legislation is being rushed through Parliament which really should be very carefully thought out.
When the local authorities received the letter from the DoE on 16th December, it said:
"The Secretary of State will be seeking legislation to validate retrospectively all past rate support grant decisions. It will provide for present practices to continue".
Momentarily, the local authorities were not very worried. The letter indicated that the Bill would simply be legalising the practice which has taken place up until now. However, one of the disturbing aspects was that once the Bill was published on the 18th there was much more to it. It does not stop short at legalising practices—which would have been acceptable to everybody—but goes much further.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, has talked about the increased powers of intervention in a number of areas relating to the accounts of local authorities. It is of concern that the Bill contains so many greater powers of interference and control than are necessary. It contains powers for the Secretary of State to specify what income or expenditure is to be regarded as of revenue nature and to specify items of account, and the way in which those are to be subtracted or added from total expenditure. The Bill gives the Secretary of State enormous scope to interfere both now and in the future.
Why is that necessary? I cannot resist a slight feeling that this is an attempt to introduce extra powers into legislation to deal with what has been called the loony Left—those authorities which in the opinion of the Government and many of us have not been behaving themselves. We all agreed in the debate last Wednesday that this was a very small minority of authorities in the country. However outrageous some behaviour has been, it cannot be right to put extra penalising powers in the hands of the Secretary of State to control all authorities in too rigid a way.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has laid down codes of practice on local authority accounting. The Controller of Audit at the Audit Commission has said in many reports that local authorities have on the whole been correct in the accounting principles they have applied to their finances. In other words, bodies of that type have not

581
criticised local authorities. I therefore believe that it cannot be right to over-restrict the freedom of all local authorities in order perhaps to control the few.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, has already referred to what we consider the most disturbing clause in the Bill, Clause 4(6), which effectively overrides any decision of a court. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, tried to explain that as it stands the legislation is not as overriding as we on this side believe it to be. But it is highly necessary that this House examines in great detail the meaning of the wording of Clause 4(6). We are decidedly of the opinion that it is too powerful and that it sets the Government above the law and even above the courts. It is one of the fundamental principles of democracy that the courts are separated from the executive. I believe the clause—failing a satisfactory explanation—to be very dangerous.
I find Clause 9 rather disturbing. A requirement on the Secretary of State to consult local authorities before exercising his power is all very fine. I should have thought however that it would have been equally necessary for there to be a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on the principles on which those powers are exercised. So far, the local authorities have not been consulted.
In our view, on this side of the House, the Bill is yet again a further example of greater centralisation of decision-making. We believe that responsibility in local government comes only by increasing democratic accountability and not by repression and further centralisation. My colleagues in the other place voted against the Second Reading of the Bill there. That is not done in your Lordships' House, but we shall have many amendments to put down before we are prepared to agree to this Bill.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am afraid that I may not be able to stay until the end of this discussion. However, I should like to make some constitutional points on this matter.
I have a letter in my hand from two professors of public law and two senior lecturers of University College, London. Their comment on the provisions in the Bill is that:
"the breadth of protection afforded by this Bill is unprecedented, unnecessary and is contrary to the basic principles of executive accountability under law".
I have studied what they have said and I endorse their opinions.
I should like to summarise the position. The game is given away in the opening words of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
"Relevant expenditure and total expenditure, which are essential elements of the rate support grant and rate limitation systems in England and Wales, have been calculated in a way which conflicts with the legislation concerned".
To put it bluntly, they have not complied with the law and they admit it.
In a way I can understand how it has happened. My noble friend Lady Hooper explained that there are two interpretations of the legislation: the wide interpretation which the Government thought was right, and the narrow interpretation which the local authorities
582
wanted. The local authorities brought such pressure to bear for their narrow interpretation that they persuaded the Government to go by that and not to go by the wide interpretation required by law. Afterwards the Attorney-General advised the Government that they were wrong to give way to the local authorities in the way that they did. That is the basic point.
The Government are putting forward a proper system, an understood system, in this Bill but at the same time in two subsections they are seeking to validate not only their own wrong calculations but all the other provisions in the Bill if they are for purposes relevant to the Bill. I have tried to put Clauses 4(1) and 4(6) into ordinary language. It comes to this: if the department has done anything which is not in compliance with the statutory provisions, it shall nevertheless be deemed to have complied with them.
The other subsection dealing with the courts says that no court shall have any power to say that a department did not comply. What an interference with the law! The executive is putting itself above the law of the land and that is something which it has never been able to do. That is the width of these provisions and the courts have inherent jurisdiction to make the departments accountable before the law. Yet this Bill would seek to take away from the courts that inherent jurisdiction.
It reminds me of the statement made by Thomas Fuller:
"Be you never so high, the law is above you".
That is what the Government are purporting to do in Clauses 4(1) and (6) about which I have spoken. Constitutionally that is erroneous. If I were to challenge that vilification I could do so because it says that:
"Anything done by the Secretary of State … for the purposes of the relevant provisions … shall be deemed to have been".
I query their conduct. They did not do it for the purposes of those provisions; they did it in order to get round the provisions.
At all events, I could argue as a lawyer against that. It seems to me that those subsections are unconstitutional in placing the executive above the law, saying that it does not matter what the law says. The judge may say that they have not complied but they will say that they have complied. That is the constitutional principle which I raise, supported by the professors.
It could be done. I understand that it is desirable to get the matter straight and to make the calculations in accordance with what ought to have been done. That could be done by a simple piece of legislation without any width such as we have here. The two professors say that it could be done quite simply by a clause saying that the calculations which have been used in the past shall in future be held to be correct. There could be some simple provision such as that—it may be retrospective but that does not matter—saying why the calculations should be deemed to be correct but not dealing with all the other provisions and so forth.
It is the width of the language to which exception is taken. It could be done better and more simply, and perhaps that can be achieved in the course of the various stages of the Bill.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, my justification for intervening in this debate on a very difficult subject, with which I have never professed to be especially familiar, is that, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I find aspects of the Bill worrying constitutionally and disturbing as possible precedents for the future. As the noble and learned Lord has already said, that view is shared by eminent academic lawyers who have written the letter to which he referred.
This is a Bill retrospectively to alter the law relating to certain aspects of the rate support grant and hence, no doubt, to indemnify the Secretary of State against liability for past illegal actions. Its very limited objective is fairly described in the opening paragraphs of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to which the noble and learned Lord referred. It says:
"Relevant expenditure and total expenditure, which are essential elements of the rate support grant and rate limitation systems in England and Wales, have been calculated in a way which conflicts with the legislation concerned … The Bill is designed to deal with the situation which has thus arisen".
There is nothing new in retrospective legislation of this character. Indeed, it has been not infrequent during the currency of the present Government as they have sought to tiptoe delicately between the various banana skins which seem to strew their path. I recall in particular the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Act 1980. I described that Bill in another place as the "Patrick Jenkin Indemnification Bill". It plainly displayed the Government's dislike of seeking sound legal advice before acting. Unfortunately it is a dislike which we have seen only too often, and Westland was another example of it. The Attorney-General has my fullest political sympathy as well as my personal sympathy and I hope that he has a speedy recovery.
The need for retrospective change in the law normally arises when the courts have declared some ministerial or local authority action to be mistaken in law, usually ultra vires. So it was with the Patrick Jenkin episode. As I understand it, no such court decision has been made in this case. In this case, after having followed a particular practice for many years, the Secretary of State has been told by legal advisers that he was wrong in that practice. Thus he seeks to change the law and effectively to declare that it always has been as changed. This is despite the fact that as recently as the 1965 Greenwich case the Court of Appeal, the Secretary of State and the local authorities proceeded on the basis that the previous practice was good law.
Since the Secretary of State has no point of reference in a formal court decision, he has decided to create an enormous umbrella. Wherever the rain may fall the Secretary of State intends to remain as dry as his reputation. He seeks to accomplish that by, in my view, the remarkable language of Clause 4(1) and Clause 4(6) which have already been referred to. As I understand them, the effect of those subsections is that whatever the Secretary of State has done in the past which has a relationship to the rate support grant, however unlawful it may be, it is to be validated and made lawful. That is to be so even if the court hereafter purports to decide the contrary. Whether the word
584
"purports" is as respectful to the courts as it should be is perhaps beside the point. It is Mr. Ridley's language, and we have to accept it.
The important point is the effect of that. If Clause 4(6) went no further than to deal with what is set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—that is to say, the calculation of relevant expenditure and total expenditure in a way which conflicts with the legislation concerned—one could have no complaint, but the language certainly appears to go very much wider. We shall want to know why that should be.
When we come to Clause 6, subsections (1) and (4) repeat the same formula. Past Acts are to be validated although we know not what those past Acts consist of. If we do, why do we not specify them? Why do we give this blank chequebook to the Secretary of State to fill in cheque after cheque as he may hereafter wish? However honourable and punctilious the Secretary of State may be, some future government, less honourable and less punctilious with an equally large paper majority, may be tempted to take action on the borderline between what is and what is not authorised by law. May not some future Secretary of State say, "Well, let us do it first and legislate later, in broad enough terms to cover any defect in what we do"?
This legislation in this form is both unnecessary and constitutionally dangerous. As a matter of constitutional practice this House should insist, in the absence of the very strongest reasons to the contrary, that all retrospective legislation is specific and related to clearly defined errors. Why ever not? In particular, it should do so if there is no court decision but merely an advice by however eminent a law officer to the effect that a practice in the past has been wrong. The legislation should not be so wide that its effect cannot be plainly determined at the time when Parliament is considering it. This legislation is so wide; at its best it is slapdash and at its worst it is pernicious.
I have searched the debates in another place, and indeed elsewhere, for an explanation of the language of those subsections. The Secretary of State explains the language by asserting that that language is no wider than necessary to deal with relevant and total expenditure, but that is plainly not so. The wording of those subsections goes far beyond those two concepts.
Part VI of the 1980 Act, which is included in the relevant provisions by Clause 4(2), goes very much further. I do not profess to be especially expert on these matters, but I have been given a long list of actions which the Secretary of State might take which fall within the language of those subsections and which are not matters directly concerned with the relevant provisions. For all we know, the Secretary of State may have fallen into error in any or all of the respects concerned. We simply do not know because there has been no court decision. Why should what are at present unknown errors be validated in this way?
The same type of criticism applies, in my view, to the wording of Clause 2 of the Bill, which is very wide wording indeed. Perhaps I may briefly turn to that. Clause 2 looks to the future. It prescribes what is revenue for the purposes of the rate fund revenue account. It says that this is to be decided in accordance with certain accounting practices. We ask: what are

585
those accounting practices? They are described in the clause as:
"the proper practices applicable to accounts … kept by local authorities … taking into account variations of practice occurring from time to time.".
So far so good. No doubt the accounting profession can advise local authorities of what are the proper practices from time to time, varying as they may do, but then we have subsections (4) and (5). Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to specify kinds of expenditure or income which are to be regarded as of a revenue nature. Subsection (5) provides that the practices to be observed are to be subject to any specification by the Secretary of State. Thus on the face of Clause 2 the Secretary of State can so specify as to override the proper practices as advised by the accounting profession.
So long as he is not quite unreasonable in what he does—in that case what he does would be open to judicial challenge—his specification is not open to challenge. It may be said that the Secretary of State would not deliberately specify that which is not a proper practice, but if that is said why not say so in the Bill? Why not make his power to specify subject to his specifying only that which is a proper practice?
The danger is a greater one. This Bill is necessitated by error on the part of the Secretary of State. How easy to compensate for some future error by a borderline specification. So another large umbrella is put up at the service of future Secretaries of State to shield them from storms created by their own errors. For my part I can see no good reason at all for the power to specify. The proper practices are surely adequate. If the I louse is persuaded that there is good reason for that power, at least it should be specified in the Bill to go no further than what is a proper practice, so as to make it open to challenge in the courts.
It may be that the evils in this Bill as it stands at the moment, can be cured in Committee. Certainly, we shall do our best to cure them. In another place there was a marked reluctance to cure, or even to recognise them. I do not follow why. Retrospective legislation is always regrettable but is at times a necessary evil. At least it should be a plainly limited evil. If even potential ambiguity can be removed, it should be removed. Otherwise, the temptation to legislate ambiguously in order to anticipate future eventualities may become too strong to resist.
I should like to ask the Minister when he is replying to the debate conscientiously to reconsider these clauses. Perhaps I may tell him that, however mellifluous may be the reading of his brief and however well phrased that brief, it will not suffice to cure the anxieties created by this Bill.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill to us. I should like to clarify a point relating to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, when she said that only one noble Lord who spoke last Wednesday on the subject of local government was speaking tonight. I think the comment was confused. There were many speakers last Wednesday on what I understand was a very good but very long debate. I was not one of those speakers.
Baroness David: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I did not say she was one of the speakers. I think I said there were many Tory Peers speaking last week and this week there is only one Back Bencher.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the noble Baronesses accept that there were very few Peers on the Opposition Back Benches who spoke in that debate?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I would accept that that is exactly what the noble Baroness said but I considered that it was slightly ambiguous and could be interpreted that only one speaker tonight was one of the speakers who had spoken on Wednesday. I just wanted to make that point quite clear. I thought that possibly those who had spoken last Wednesday found that it was such a long, late night that they could not face it again. I had been involved in the inner cities debate on the Monday and for that reason I did not speak in the debate on Wednesday.
The noble Baroness went on to speak about the manipulation of expenditure. It is very easy for noble Lords to remember the tombstoning and the various profligate rate expenditures which led to the rate-capping Bill being brought in in the first place. The noble Baroness also made the point in her speech that the Secretary of State had taken no action from the date when he knew that this could be a fault. This point was made by other speakers. When we read the debates which have taken place in the other place it was quite clearly stated by the Secretary of State that when this matter was brought to his attention, (and it was through his own department that this happened) he did then seek legal opinion immediately. He also followed that up with second legal opinion. As all noble Lords know, many of these legal opinions take a considerable time. It would be quite unfair to say that there was no action taken as soon as the matter was discovered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who is not here, said in her speech that we all knew about the matter in late summer and early autumn. I do not think that anyone claims to have known anything about it until September, which is the earliest date mentioned. I confirm that the Government's Statement was on 16th December. There is an urgent need to pass this legislation because until it is passed the rate support grant for 1987–88 cannot be agreed, and is being delayed. This situation causes a degree of uncertainty and worry to the local authorities, which are waiting for news of the rate support grant.
A very interesting point was made about the process of appeal against rate-capping, the redetermination of expenditure. I should be very interested to know whether or not the agreed percentages are considered to be higher and therefore more relaxed for those authorities than they might otherwise have expected. Perhaps the Government are erring on the side of being too generous rather than being too hard. I do not know. I have always been a great supporter of rate-capping because I have seen the very severe effects on both residents and businesses in areas where rates have risen not just slightly but by multipliers.

587
The noble Baroness also referred to correspondence or attitudes of the district councils. The point which she made is true but she did not mention that many other points were made in their correspondence. The district councils make the point very clearly that all the laws that were considered carefully by Parliament at the time were considered in conjunction with lengthy consultation with all the local authority associations. Noble Lords cannot say for one moment that there was any doubt whatever at the time about what was being done. It is only as recently as last year that these doubts arose. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made the point that even court cases have been heard on these matters and at no time has anyone ever questioned the validity of the basis on which the case was brought.
The Association of Distrisct Councils has raised a relevant point which is important. It is concerned about the statement made by the Secretary of State when he said that transfers to special funds which cause a deficit on the general rate fund would clearly not be allowed under this proposed legislation. My noble friend in her opening statement referred to this matter, but the Association of District Councils does not seem to know exactly where in the Bill that matter is covered. It was assured that the Bill would cover the point. I am referring to the type of transfers which were mentioned and which can mean that one authority, or a number of authorities together, can gain £38 million extra at the cost of other district councils. I should be very grateful if the Minister can inform me in his reply which part of the Bill covers that point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, interestingly spoke as to the need for powers to specify. I had intended to say that I thought Clause 2(2) was the best part of the Bill, because it is important to specify. I say that from the point of view of the local authorities themselves the greatest difficulty when trying to work out accounts is to know exactly what you are entitled to include and what you are not. It would have been helpful for local authorities to have a more specific list of what is allowed.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I am not disputing the matters put forward by the noble Baroness but would she not agree that the power to specify must be a power which is within the proper practices and not outside them? Therefore, if there is any doubt about that that doubt ought to be put right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I agree with the noble and learned Lord that we shall have a good Committee stage on this Bill when we will go into the detail of all these points being raised tonight. My own experience in local government has been that different people can decide when different expenditures will be claimable or allowable, or by clever means one can move funds from one account to another. In this way it is possible to get around the ruling. For that reason I support a more specific list. Basically my support for this Bill is because there was a general consensus in the past about relevant and total expenditure. Those are the two key options in the local government finance system. When legislation was drawn up in the past, the advice of the local authority associations was sought and given. Indeed, no one would wish to accuse them of giving their advice in anything but the best faith.
588
I hope that the Bill will make clear—I await confirmation of this—in the transfers between funds and accounts what is expenditure and what is not. It will also mean that the rate support grant can proceed for the coming year. I think that it is a good thing that the rate fund revenue account will be a clearly defined item, and that Clause 1 requires the keeping of this record. I am somewhat surprised to read in the report of proceedings of the other place that not all authorities have kept such records. I should have thought that basic housekeeping would ensure that all authorities kept records, and it seems desirable to have that done. I therefore welcome the Bill.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too was grateful for the painstaking presentation of the Minister in explaining the Bill, though, having heard previous speakers, I feel that the contents of the Bill may have been rather less acceptable than the presentation that the noble Baroness made.
I will make only a brief intervention. My noble friends Lady David and Lord Silkin, who have spoken fully on the Bill, have covered the constitutional aspects of it and pointed out the major objections to it. They have stressed particularly how the specific assurances that the Government gave at the time of the Rates Act 1984 are contradicted in the Bill as drafted. As my noble friends said, the Government gave assurances at that time that the appeal procedures in the Act would be an essential safeguard against arbitrary decisions made by the Department of the Environment. That is not honoured in the Bill.
I will not say anything about the main part of the Bill, therefore, but I should like to say a word or two about its implications for the Inner London Education Authority. I wish first to say a few words about the cuts that would affect ILEA as a whole. Then, as I am a governor of two small ILEA schools, I should like to try to relate how those cuts, if carried out, will specifically affect one of the schools.
The budget of the Inner London Education Authority at present totals nearly £1 billion and the authority is responsible for maintaining nearly 1,000 institutions ranging from polytechnics to nursery schools. The authority has been rate-capped since 1985, and remains so automatically until at least 1988–89 under the terms of the Local Government Act 1985. It has received no rate support grant since the present system was imposed in 1981–82.
Under Schedule 2(2) of the Bill, a formula is to be applied for ILEA's precept limit. This would produce a precept income of £942 million. I understand that this precept, in the very precise form to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred, is based on the advice of Government departments which have no direct experience of the education service in London. At no point, I understand, has the education officer of the authority been asked for his advice. Moreover, in the course of the next few months, if the formula which provides the basis of the authority's budget proves to be flawed, it will not be possible for the Secretary of State or the authority to make adjustments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the authority about which she is speaking is the highest spending and least effective authority in the whole country?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not true.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is very knowledgeable. She is probably a governor of several schools of the Inner London Education Authority, and perhaps they are not as well run as the two of which I am a governor. I speak having some knowledge of how those schools are run, and the standard is very high.
It is estimated that the cost of ILEA's current policies next year, including appropriate provision for pay increases and reserves, is £1,067 million. Therefore, the gap between income and ILEA's needs is about £125 million, which represents 12 per cent. of the proposed expenditure.
It is thought that the difference can be accounted for by four factors, first the government underestimate of existing levels of ILEA costs; secondly, the government under-provision for pay and price increases, and unavoidable increases in costs in 1987–88; and thirdly, the government under-provision for future costs and risks which might well occur in running a £1,000 million business. The last factor is the Government's planned level of cuts, which is £71 million.
Basing their calculations on that £71 million, ILEA officers have undertaken a comprehensive examination of budget cuts of either £50 million or £80 million to see how such cuts would affect the services of the various institutions. As I said, I should like to relate these calculations as made by ILEA officers to how they would affect the particular schools to which I referred and of which I am a governor.
One is a small primary school in Chelsea called Marlborough School, with 150 children in the primary section and 340 in the nursery school. In spite of the very well-to-do neighbourhood in which it is set, as many as one quarter of the children are on free school meals, and as many as 30 different nationalities are represented in the school. At present the school is managing all right, but only just all right—things are very close. The class size of 28 is regarded as about the right size for the children to receive an adequate and good education. The capitation amount also seems adequate at present. There are enough staff to cover the emergencies and sicknesses and the problems of having not only quite a large section of underprivileged children but a very large section of foreign children in the school. The head teacher still feels that he has a sufficient degree of flexibility to ensure that backward children, non-English speaking children, and so on, are provided for. As I said, things are very tight, and the standards of the school are only just being maintained.
The head teacher told me that the implication for him of a £50 million cut on the whole authority would be as follows. From a staffing point of view, he would lose at least one teaching post by the end of the year. He, like others, would lose about 10 per cent. Of
590
support staffing—secretarial, technical, library, schoolkeeping—and this might well amount to one full-time post.
From the point of view of finance for books and equipment, a school of 200 pupils—about the same as his—would lose nearly £400 from an allocation of £6,000. This would have a serious effect on books and equipment. Maintenance in all schools would be cut by 60 per cent. This would produce a major reduction in interior decoration, day-to-day maintenance and equipment repairs. This school would suffer particularly because it is an old school and the maintenance is already falling a little behind. With a 60 per cent. cut, there would be a great backlog of maintenance of the school. From the point of view of other expenditure, there would be cuts in school journeys, games and swimming; and concerts and drama visits would be reduced by 10 to 20 per cent.
The head teacher would feel that he was no longer really in control of his own school; that he would no longer have the leeway necessary to make the necessary adjustments in a complicated school containing children of so many nationalities. He and his staff wonder whether they would maintain the high standard that this school—and I can vouch for this as a governor—at present maintains.
I have given your Lordships that one example of how the cuts would affect a school that I know of. Of course the only protection that could be afforded to this particular head teacher and many others in other authorities would be if the Bill were to contain a provision for some discretion to be exercised should circumstances require it, and that is what I hope we shall be able to put in at Committee stage.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, when I first entered local government as a member of Birmingham City Council one of the most difficult tasks that one had was to learn—and learn fast—how one spent the money. That meant that one had to understand about rate support grants and about all the other grants that the local authority received. After 15 years—and having been chairman of the housing committee during that time—I think I left the local authority with a rather clear understanding of how the rate support grant worked and how all the various components worked when we had specific grants.
However, as my noble friend Lady David said, with all the major changes which have been taking place in local government finance since this Government took office, I would readily accept that if I sat an examination my marking now on understanding the rate support system would be C-minus. That is not because I have not tried to apply myself. I have tried to understand, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, herself said, the terminology of local government finance is out of this world.
Take the jargon that is used. We have positive marginal grant and negative marginal grant. They are just opposites, are they not? Then we have close-ended; we have clawback; flowback; holdback; and so far as concerns Birmingham I should add "take back" because that is the intention of this Bill. Then we look at the Bill itself. We look at the schedules. Did you ever

591
see such algebraic mumbo-jumbo? An example is: (EL times 1.04) minus BG times 100 over RV. If you are a metropolitan county police authority, that is your formula. I supose that these people will have all these marvellous computers to feed this into. I only hope that if anything has to go to court the judges have the same kind of provision.
There is a complexity about the Bill. It is important that this time the Government should get the wording right. There should not be any more cause for concern. However, only as recently as half past five I was handed a reference from the Association of District Councils. It said, among other things, that they were,
"concerned at the poor drafting of the Bill. Even for those with expertise in both law and RSG matters the Bill is difficult to follow".
Then it goes on to enumerate the various clauses which no doubt will be debated at Committee stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when introducing the Bill said that it was introduced to correct what the Government see as an error in the way in which expenditure is calculated for block grant purposes. However, noble Lords and noble Baronesses have already pointed out that the Bill goes beyond this to retrospectively penalise authorities for decisions that they took as far back as 1983–84.
If I may speak about the city of which I was proud to be a councillor for so many years, Birmingham is set to lose up to £17·7 million of block grant as a result of actions taken in 1984–85. Part of that period was when the local authority was in the control of the Conservative Party, with the Labour Party taking the latter part of that period.
The penalty to be imposed if the retrospective clause in the Bill is approved causes great concern. The accounts were certified by our approved auditors, Price, Waterhouse. The Government say that this suddenly dawned on them in September. Price, Waterhouse themselves wrote to the Department of the Environment on 16th May explaining that the city had created a supply of goods and services fund. They said that they thought that it was a lawful charge on the city's accounts. That was sent to the Department of the Environment on 16th May. Therefore it knew that there was some kind of interpretation of the law that perhaps it may not have known.
It is also true to say that not only did the approved auditors accept what Birmingham did but the Audit Commission also accepted it. It was said in the debate in the other place that there was nothing illegal in what Birmingham was doing. When the discussion was all about what was called at one stage by the Bill's opponents the fiddle, an honourable Member asked a direct question of the Secretary of State. This was on 26th January, as reported at col. 72 of Hansard. The Member asked:
"Is the right honourable Gentleman saying that it acted illegally?".
The whole of the debate was about Birmingham. At col. 73, Hansard states:
"Mr. Ridley: It was not an illegal act"—
one sentence. Then he said other things, but he said that it was not an illegal act.
Birmingham did not act illegally. Birmingham acted in good faith. As my noble and learned friend Lord
592
Silkin explained in perhaps more knowledgeable terms than I can, there must be an objection to a retrospective change in the law which would disallow that which was believed to be lawful and was lawful at the time.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that Birmingham is not an inefficient or profligate local authority. It is a large authority. I suppose it still is the largest local authority in Great Britain, and it knows its real tasks. Though it changes regularly from Labour to Conservative, it is a local authority in which there is a consensus of opinion in the large council of 150-odd members. That council knows it real tasks, in that it is to provide services for the people in its locality. Its officers know that they have a responsibility to maximise the largest amount of grant that they can possibly get. I do not think that there is anything wrong in that.
I shall be bringing up the difficulties that Birmingham faces during Committee stage, and therefore I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the Birmingham case. I know that other local authorities are in similar circumstances. Though most of them are classified as Labour-controlled, as my noble friend Lady David said, Cambridge, which I understand is a hung council, is in the same kind of difficulties. I hope the Minister will be able to accept that when these local authorities made their decisions they made them properly and in the very best interests of their ratepayers.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as with others who have taken part in this Second Reading debate, I appreciate the very clear manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, introduced the Bill. At the risk of being thought chauvinistic, may I say that her manner, was gentle and disarming. And that, I believe, was vitally necessary when one recalls that in last Wedneday's debate on the inner cities, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to outrageous local authorities. Today we are dealing with an outrageous Bill, an outrageous piece of legislation brought forward by this Government. As my noble friend Lady David has made perfectly clear, echoed by others, we recognise the need to clarify the law and to make certain it is as it was thought to be.
Noble Lords will recall that a Statement made in the other place on 16th December was repeated in your Lordships' House. It stated clearly, at column 115 of Hansard:
"The Bill is designed to make no changes in policy but as far as possible to apply existing policy within a tight timetable.".
That is what we were promised by the Secretary of State in his Statement on 16th December.
Introducing the Second Reading debate in the other place on 12th January, the Secretary of State said:
"As the House knows, the purpose of the Bill is to validate the practice that my Department and the Welsh Office have both adopted since 1981–82, in line with the wishes of local government.".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/87: col. 391.]
That was stated at Second Reading to be the purpose of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady David has made absolutely clear, if that was the sole purpose of the Bill, then the fullest co-operation was promised by the

593
Opposition to get it through expeditiously. I am assured, however, that the Opposition spokesmen in the other place were never contacted to get such cooperation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, put up a creditable and loyal defence of the Bill and attempted to justify the timetable that has been followed. But, as my noble friend Lady David said, the timetable now being followed shows ineptitude, a lack of straightforwardness and gross inefficiency.
On 16th December, in his Statement, the Secretary of State said that the first he knew of the difficulty was in October. In the Second Reading debate in another place, he then admitted that it was in September when he first knew. The Secretary of State addressed another place in the debate on the Loyal Address on 17th November. There was not the slightest inkling that there were problems to be dealt with if this difficulty was to be overcome. On 3rd December, Labour's environment spokesman in another place put a PNQ to the Secretary of State asking whether he would make a Statement on proposals for rate support grant for 1987–88. Not an inkling was given that there were problems and that legislation may have to be brought forward to put the law as we all thought it was. We had to wait until 16th December to be told of the Government's full intentions. Even then we had no idea that the Bill was to go beyond clarifying the law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, says that legislation is urgently needed in view of the present procedures that have to be followed. If there had been a very simple Bill, as I think one noble Lord suggested, of two or three clauses, we could have clarified the law and we could have followed the usual procedures in connection with the existing rate support grant.
I propose to say nothing of the legal problems contained in the Bill. The speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin, in their respective ways, were devastating legal criticisms of the contents of the Bill. I hope that as many noble Lords as possible will read those speeches—by two noble and learned Lords who are well respected and whose legal standing is beyond question—before this House goes into Committee on the Bill.
Reference has been made to the very serious defect in the Bill which abolishes the opportunity for an authority to seek redetermination. It must be emphasised again that during consideration of the Rates Act 1984, which gives each rate-capped authority a proposed maximum rate, it was stressed beyond any doubt that there was to be a degree of flexibility in relation to the circumstances of each authority to enable representations to be made and so provide, if possible, the opportunity to reach agreement.
The Government gave specific assurance that appeal procedures would be essential to safeguard against arbitrary decision-making by the Department of the Environment. Those pledges were made when we were considering the Rates Act 1984. Now, in the Bill, there are proposals to prevent discussions, or the possibility of discussions, on flexibility.
What does the Bill propose instead? Reference has been made to Schedule 2 which sets out blanket
594
formula for maximum rates in blocks of different types of constituencies. It is not concerned with the particular circumstances of an individual authority or the consideration of the needs of individual authorities. The block formula is added to the taking away of the possibility of redetermination. The Bill will take away the ability of a local authority to enter into discussions on a proposed maximum rate.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has stated clearly that to decide higher expenditure levels by classes of authority is very crude. It means for previously rate-capped authorities that expenditure levels are frozen. For all newly-capped authorities, it means a 2 per cent. increase, for all police authorities a 4 per cent. increase, irrespective of individual needs. The association asserts that this is neither logical nor fair.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said she was not certain whether these figures were too high or too low. Incidentally, the AMA is to meet the Secretary of State on 12th February to discuss the Bill. Heaven knows what they will discuss, unless the Secretary of State is prepared to listen to criticisms of the Bill and himself propose amendments. Otherwise, I cannot see what discussions are possible—only firm criticisms of what the Government are proposing.
My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has dealt with the effect of the Bill's formula on ILEA and my noble friend Lady Fisher has explained from her personal knowledge the effect of the Bill on the great city of Birmingham. I thought that I would look to see what the AMA has suggested are the implications for the six new joint passenger transport authorities. With my interest in transport questions, I thought that I would look to see what was proposed. Of course, this concerns the six metropolitan areas, each rate capped by the Local Government Act 1985. In July 1986, each of those PTAs was informed by the Secretary of State of its expenditure level for 1987–88, and given the opportunity for appeal.
Five of the six PTAs sought redetermination. None was decided, and their wish to seek redetermination goes if the Bill remains as it is. Under the block formula in Schedule 2, the AMA makes it clear that each PTA will have an expenditure level involving an increase of 2 per cent. Time does not permit at this stage going into all the transport problems that we know PTAs are going to face during the coming year. Schedule 2 proposes block formulae irrespective of individual needs.
I have had a letter from the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority expressing the concern not simply of a Labour-controlled authority but with all-party support from members of the authority. That concern is with the standard formula which takes no account of the special needs of Tyne and Wear. The authority had sought redetermination; that will go by the board. It is particularly concerned with the loss of the right of appeal against the maximum precept set for 1987–88.
The authority makes a point which has not yet been referred to. Looking at the block formulae in Schedule 2, there is the use of rateable value instead of the penny rate product. The Tyne and Wear PTA says that this

595
formula and the use of that particular rateable value criterion will mean that it has a shortfall in revenue next year.
I have also heard from the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority in precisely similar terms. It was also seeking redetermination, but that goes by the board. It fears that the shortfall in 1987–88 will be no less than £11·4 million. Yet in a letter to the Greater Manchester PTA dated 22nd December, the Minister said that he looked forward to the implementation of proposals by the authority, which he considered to be overdue. The Manchester PTA has made it absolutely clear that these cannot possibly be proceeded with if there is to be a loss of £11.4 million.
If we take a quick look at the fire and civil defence authorities' block formulae, I gather that the standard uplift there is 2·5 per cent. for all. Various fire and civil defence authorities have indicated what this means and the problems it will entail. South Yorkshire says that it will be unable to fill vacancies and that its manning level is below the level recommended by the Home Office. There is a possibility of no replacement of fire appliances and vehicles which may need urgent attention. Other fire and civil defence authorities have put forward similar views to the AMA.
Under the Bill, there is no way to question in detail the reasoning, the thinking, the logic (if there is any) and the preparation that led the Secretary of State to declare that he would rate-cap an authority. Under the Bill, it will not be possible to debate a particular authority. There will be no necessity to lay an order before Parliament, not even under the negative procedure. The Secretary of State will be able to act without any parliamentary scrutiny, just by sending a letter to the local authority concerned.
My noble and learned friend Lord Silkin referred to Clause 2(3) which refers to the proper practice to be followed in connection with the entries in the rate fund revenue account. As he rightly says, "proper practice" is not defined in the Bill. But the auditor, who is responsible, has to see that an authority has followed proper practice in the compilation of its accounts. CIPFA has issued a code of conduct for local authorities on local authority accounting. I would emphasise a point that was made by my noble friend. Under the Bill, local authorities will need to observe proper practice but at the same time they will be expected to carry into effect the specifications which the Secretary of State may make on the nature of the rate fund.
In conclusion, my noble friend Lady David referred to the guillotine procedure adopted in the other place. On the 26th January—not long ago—the Government secured this guillotine procedure whereby ten clauses after Clause 7 and three schedules were not debated in the other place. Mr. John Biffen, the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House, said in the debate on that procedural motion, at col. 39:
"The main motivation and desire has been to get the Bill to another place where it will undoubtedly by very fully considered and then reported to this place".
I hope that the words of the Leader of the other place will be taken to heart, that we will give this Bill serious consideration, and that we will amend it and
596
send it back in a far better state; that is, if the Government do not see common sense and withdraw the Bill, putting forward just a simple Bill to clarify the law.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on what is by any standards a highly technical Bill. I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that it is a highly technical Bill. Indeed I have needed to do more homework on this Bill than on any other I have been involved in during my time in your Lordships' House.
It is complicated also by the fact that the nitty gritty, if I may so call it, of local government finance is a subject which we in this House are not used to dealing with on an annual basis and one which we come to look at only on rare occasions. I say this having listened to, and understood, the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the frequency of legislation. It is nothing like as frequent as some other subjects we discuss in this House.
However, that is no reason why the Bill's very technicality—that is a point on which I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher—should obscure the one simple principle behind it, which is to maintain so far as possible the status quo in the conduct of local government finance by putting practice on a proper statutory footing. That means continuing with the definition of expenditure adopted in line with the wishes of local government in England, Wales and Scotland, and providing for the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement and the rate limitation process to be implemented for England and Wales with the maximum of certainty for the authorities concerned. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that the Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the loony Left. The position is that the system which has up to now been followed was agreed with the local authority associations at the very beginning, when it came into operation. The Government are putting forward legislation that gives statutory form to the system that the local authorities always wanted. There is essentially no change, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher.
I have considerable sympathy on this occasion for even the noble Baroness, Lady David, who argued that rather than bolster up an existing system where faults are widely acknowledged, we should turn immediatly to something else. Whether she would like that to be the Green Paper proposals remains to be seen. Unfortunately it would have been quite impossible to set up the new system, including necessary transitional measures, in the time available. The urgent need for that reform is, however, more apparent than ever. I should also make the point that the rate support grant system which we now have is much simpler than that which the Government inherited in 1979, which used a computer in Ohio, of all places, to do the calculations.
I shall not repeat again the detailed summary of the Bill given by my noble friend Lady Hooper—to whom I am extremely grateful—at the start of the debate. I should underline, however, that there is no intention here to create new structures or impose new burdens

597
on local authorities. The Bill translates into statute what is effectively current practice in calculating relevant and total expenditure by reference to what is commonly called the rate fund revenue account. The point here is that, although this will be the first time they are expressly referred to in statute, all local authorities already keep such accounts. It is not therefore the huge step that has been alluded to in certain quarters. So far as it is possible, it adopts the wording of the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Noble Lords will of course have the opportunity to consider the approach in detail during Committee. However, I can assure them that their scrutiny will not unearth the kind of centralising measure which some have claimed this Bill to be.
As regards timing, the Government came to this House in December, as soon as they were able to present to Parliament their fully worked out proposals for handling the problem. It would have been quite irresponsible to come without such a solution and thus face local government with the great uncertainty which would have followed. My right honourable friend also made clear that while he was alerted to a problem in this area in mid-September, he did not receive legal advice upon which the Government acted until late December.
As we all know, it took some six weeks before my right honourable friend was in a position to have a Bill sufficiently drafted to be able to make the announcement that he made. I can assure any noble Lord who has experience—and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, certainly has such experience—of the progress of drafting legislation that this happened at the pace of a cheetah and not at the pace of a snail, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in order to assist the noble Lord, I believe that he referred to the end of December. Surely he must have meant October, since the Second Reading debate was 12th January.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. The Statement was on 16th December and that was the six weeks' period to which I referred.
My noble friend Lady Hooper explained what decisions the Bill did and did not validate. In brief, all future decisions of the Secretary of State on rate support grant and rate limitation will be subject to review by the courts in the normal way. Anything done for purposes of the statute falling within Clause 4(2) and Clause 6 are validated. The Bill expressly provides for this in Clause 4(1) which says:
"Anything done by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act for the purposes of the relevant provisions in relation to any of the initial years or intermediate years shall be deemed to have been done in compliance with those provisions".
The position of rate limitation is dealt with in Clause 6. It is here that the Opposition's basic misunderstanding of the Government's intentions arises. I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to the discussion on the rate support grant arising out of a Statement I repeated on 13th January. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition pressed me hard to say that that was a definitive Statement, exactly like
598
previous years. If I had bowed to that pressure and my right honourable friend had introduced the usual accompanying order, that would have been quite improper.
As the situation stands under the Bill, local authorities will, if they so wish, be able to challenge future decisions on rate support grant relating to the current and past years. The decisions we intend to make in the future comprise the conclusive calculations of authorities' block grant entitlements for 1981–82 and 1982–83; one further supplementary report and thereafter the conclusive calculations for 1983–84 and 1984–85; and getting more up to date, we intend to make at least two more supplementary reports, and the conclusive calculations for 1985–86. Last but by no means least, it will be necessary to make all four supplementary reports and the conclusive block grant calculations for 1986–87.
My right honourable friend made clear in the 13th January Statement that none of these—not one—will be made before the Bill becomes law. They are thus not validated by Clause 4 or any other clause.
Noble Lords opposite—principally the noble and learned Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Denning—have also sought to argue that the validation of past decisions goes too wide. They have argued that validation should only cover matters directly related to the definitions of relevant and total expenditure. The Government's view, however, is that there should be no doubt about what is and is not validated. We have considered carefully how the validation should be effected. We believe that the approach we have adopted is both necessary and right.
Noble Lords opposite speak of putting the Executive above the law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, did, but this is not so. As I and my noble friend Lady Hooper have repeatedly said, the Bill validates past decisions of my right honourable friend. Once it is enacted, those decisions will be deemed to be valid.
I say in passing that Clause 4(6) and (1) should be read together. Perhaps this is where some of the confusion has arisen, although I am sure the confusion is not in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin. I can perhaps give an idea of the sort of uncertainties which would arise if we followed the path proposed by the Opposition in another place. It was suggested that many provisions of Part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 were not dependent on total or relevant expenditure definitions. Examples given were the Secretary of State's duty to consult local authority associations; determination of the aggregate amount of domestic rate relief grant; calculation of block grant to each authority; the principles to be specified in the rate support grant report; the power of the Secretary of State to apply multipliers to the product of grant-related poundage, multiplied by gross rateable value; and the duty to frame guidance by reference to principles applicable to all local authorities.
For example, although I accept that the Secretary of State's duty to consult the local authority associations is not itself dependent on total or relevant expenditure, he has consulted annually on proposals based on an erroneous calculation of total and relevant expenditure. Although the determination of the

599
aggregate amount of domestic rate relief grant is not in itself dependent on total or relevant expenditure, domestic rate relief grant is part of aggregate Exchequer grant, which the Secretary of State determines in the light of his view of relevant expenditure.
A calculation of block grant to each authority is in large part dependent upon the total expenditure of the authority concerned. The concepts of total and relevant expenditure are endemic in the principles specified in the rate support grant report, in multipliers and the grant related poundages. In all but one year the Secretary of State has framed guidance for local authorities on the basis of total expenditure. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that these matters have nothing to do with total or relevant expenditures and therefore could be exempted from the validation proposed. No doubt we shall return to this issue during the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that today's debate will have made clear what we intend to validate and why we believe it is necessary so to do.
Noble Lords opposite questioned the powers we are seeking in relation to local authority accountancy and in particular those in Clause 2(4). Let me say at the outset that the Bill is not about regulating local authority accounting. It is establishing in statute for the first time a method of calculating relevant and total expenditure, which will be broadly the same as the practices which have been traditionally followed by local authorities. The traditional practices involve calculating relevant and total expenditure by reference to the rate fund revenue accounts, which authorities have traditionally kept, although not hitherto required to do so by statute.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill set up in statute for 1987–88 onwards the rate fund revenue account. The provisions are designed so that the new statutory rate fund revenue accounts will be similar to, if not the same as, those which traditionally authorities have in general kept; and I know that the local authorities believe this to be so.
Clause 2(4) is designed so that some items of expenditure or income can be specified as being of a revenue nature where there may be some doubt. The powers of Clause 2(4) do not permit my right honourable friend to specify that an item is not revenue—in other words, that it is capital. Nor do those powers provide for specifications about items such as transfers between accounts and funds which are not expenditure or income.
I also draw the attention of the House to the assurance which my honourable friend the Under-Secretary gave in another place that my right honourable friend has no intention of specifying something to be revenue which the whole world thinks is capital. In other words, that will be covered by the phrase "normal accountancy practices", as described by noble Lords and as promoted by CIPFA.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord undertaking on behalf of the Government that the Secretary of State will not specify except in relation to a matter which is a proper practice within subsection (3)? If he is saying that, would he object to an amendment which makes that plain on the face of the clause?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I said is that we have no intention of specifying something to be revenue which the whole world thinks is capital. Knowing the speed with which my mind is working at the moment, I shall have to reflect on the question that the noble Lord has just asked me. But I can undertake to give him an answer before the Committee stage starts.
My noble friend Lady Hooper also explained why we have had to adopt for 1987–88 only the approach to rate and precept limitation contained in the Bill. It would simply not have been possible to carry through the normal Rates Act procedures given the need for legislation on the definition of expenditure. Some noble Lords have argued that the method adopted and the formulae proposed in the Bill are quite unreasonable. On closer examination of the Bill I hope your Lordships will accept that this is not the case.
I listened with great care to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who spoke about ILEA. However, what she did not say is that ILEA is rate-capped by law under the Local Government Act 1985.
I turn now to appeal procedures under rate limitation. I accept on behalf of the Government that normal procedures are not being followed for 1987–88 as laid down in the Rates Act 1984. My right honourable friends have made it clear that this was not possible given the need for the expenditure legislation. In reaching decisions on the formulae the Secretary of State took into account all representations made in redetermination applications and at meetings about them.
I do not accept the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that my right honourable friends have behaved in an underhand manner in respect of rate limited authorities. As I said, in reaching their decisions my right honourable friends have, as in any normal year, considered all the information available to them about the designated authorities. They took particular note of applications for redetermination of expenditure levels. The representations made at meetings about those applications were carefully considered. Of course, given the need for the formula approach, limits cannot be precisely tailored to individual circumstances as in a normal year, but so far as is possible they reflect the decisions the Secretary of State would have taken under Rates Act procedures, and they are of course for one year only.
The Bill carries through the policy of protecting ratepayers by holding down rates and expenditure. Some authorities, despite being rate limited in 1985–86 and again in 1986–87, have attempted to maintain their high levels of spending and have taken no steps to cut out waste and inefficiency or other burdens on their ratepayers. The position has been all too clearly expressed in the Audit Commission's recent report on certain London authorities. It is right therefore that the disciplines of rate limitation should be firmly maintained. For authorities newly selected for rate-capping in 1987–88, my right honourable friend has proposed some additional flexibility above original levels set in July. The fact remains, however, that these authorities were among the highest spenders and the purpose of rate limitation is to constrain that spending.

601
In talking about constraining spending perhaps I may say that the Inner London Education Authority is by all accounts and in any person's vocabulary a high spending authority. It educates 4 per cent. of the children in English state schools but is responsible for 8 per cent. of the spending by education authorities. It spends 30 per cent. more per pupil than the inner city authorities of Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, and almost 60 per cent. more than the beloved Birmingham of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. The formula in the Bill produces a figure for a maximum precept, which is a 3.2 per cent. increase on this year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science considers that such a precept would be sufficient for ILEA to provide an adequate service in 1987–88 while protecting the interests of the ratepayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned, not surprisingly because I know his interest in these matters, a whole range of passenger transport authorities. I should like to refer to one of them—namely, Tyne and Wear. The transport authority is too gloomy about the effect of deregulation on the Metro. The authority has a superb chance to promote it and noble Lords all around the House have congratulated the authority on the Metro system. There is healthy competition from bus services, which is why the promotion is so necessary. People will use it if it gives them the service they want. I do not accept the need for cuts in concessionary fares, but that is a matter entirely for the passenger transport authority.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, apologised and said that he was unable to be here, I think it would be right briefly to refer to the position in Scotland. What has gone wrong has been that since 1983–84 transfers between the general rate fund and special funds have been taken into account in determining grant penalties; in other words, there have been reductions in rate support grant as a penalty for overspending. This procedure, though now revealed as wrong, was with the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and has been in the local authorities' interests. If the transfers had not been corrected, most authorities would have paid more in penalty, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would not have liked that.
I am extremely grateful, knowing her particular and peculiar circumstances this evening, to my noble friend Lady Gardner who asked a specific question about deficit financing and the £38 million which she quoted. The relevant provision in the Bill is in Clause 3(1). This in itself does not outlaw deficit financing. It allows the Secretary of State to make specifications so as not to take these transfers into account in calculating relevant expenditure. Generally, there is a duty to consult before making any such specifications.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, questioned the cost of this legislation. There will be no significant extra costs to government, nor do we expect there to be any significant costs to local authorities. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that we should take all the necessary steps to give certainty to all past decisions on rate support grant and to enable us to
602
continue the present practices in calculating relevant and total expenditure, which local authorities themselves wanted.
It is normal at this point to say something about the inevitably complicated Notes on Clauses for this Bill, which I had intended would be placed in the Printed Paper Office by the close of business today, but I think that under the circumstances, if noble Lords will allow, perhaps tomorrow morning will serve the interests of the House just as well.
I can only conclude from this debate that there has been a serious but complete misunderstanding somewhere along the line which we cannot get to the bottom of tonight. I urge the House to give its usual thorough consideration to what my noble friend and I have said, and we shall look forward to exploring any avenue noble Lords wish to pursue in Committee and at subsequent stages. The Bill is essential if we are to be able to pay grant to authorities next year on the basis of long accepted practice. It maintains the status quo. It contains no new centralising power. It validates only those decisions which we believe it necessary to validate to avoid the uncertainty which the discovery of the error on expenditure could otherwise have caused. For all these reasons, I recommend to your Lordships that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Arms Sales and Human Rights
9.11 p.m.
Lord Brockway Lord Brockway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their policy of supplying arms to nations which deny human rights.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper; namely, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their policy of supplying arms to nations which deny human rights.
When I do not myself do research I like to acknowledge those who have done it—on this occasion the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. With remarkable thoroughness and in detail they have covered the ground of this debate. I thank that organisation myself and I am sure that other Members of the House would also wish to do so.
I wish to approach this subject within the international situation. Our Government, the American Government, some of the governments of the West, and those who stand behind them, abhor the Soviet Union because it has established a form of communism which they regard as a challenge to the capitalist economic system. I do not believe that that ideological conflict is the motivation of most people in their attitude to the Soviet Union. I think that among

603
the mass of people opposition to the Soviet Union has been on account of its record in the treatment of dissident opinion—the sending to prison camps in distant Siberia for long periods, often for life, of those who dare to express an opinion which is not that of the Government. There have been occasions when there have been other reasons for criticism, for example, the invasion of Afghanistan and the treatment of Solidarity in Poland, but the continuing criticism of the Soviet Union has been its treatment of dissident opponents.
In view of that we must be very careful indeed to keep our own hands clean. That is particularly true now in view of the historic decisions that have just been taken in the Soviet Union; namely, the liberation of many prisoners from Siberia to which I have referred and the beginning of democracy in its constitution. I do not think that we can yet estimate the profound effect that these changes will bring about in the future, but the fact that they are taking place makes it even more necessary that we should have a clean record in our attitude towards human rights.
I think it can be claimed that in this country we give recognition to human rights. Occasionally the National Council for Civil Liberties raises incidental issues, but overall in this country we recognise the right to liberty of thought, writing and speech. But that is not enough. In addition, we have to think of our attitude toward the denial of human rights in other countries. The Campaign Against the Armaments Industry lists eight countries to which we supply arms, either directly or in conjunction with our allies, despite their denial of human rights. They are: Chile, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and South Africa. I should add Israel in view of its attitude toward the Palestinians.
It is relevant to remind the House that during the dictatorship in Argentina, before the invasion of the Falkland Islands, this country provided that dictatorship with an extraordinary assortment of arms. I have enabled that fact to be recorded in the proceedings of this House. I propose to give particular attention to South Africa, though it is not typical of other countries, because in the first place it is the greatest offender so far as concerns human rights.
Secondly, and this is controversial but I do not want to shirk the issue, in November 1977 the United Nations imposed a mandatory arms embargo on South Africa. No arms could be sent to South Africa. There is evidence, which I shall indicate, that the armaments industry, unable to send arms to South Africa, decided to seek to build up the armaments industry in South Africa itself. It had remarkable success. The industry grew from deep weakness to a condition today which in many areas surpasses what is happening in other parts of the world; and 90 per cent. of that success is based on foreign assistance, largely from this country.
The armaments industry sought to build up the industry in South Africa in three ways. The first was by the smuggling of arms. I was so astonished by that that I wrote to the Minister who is to reply to the debate.
604
The evidence is given by the authoritative South African Armaments Corporation, which declared that arms, components and spare parts had been smuggled.
I ask the Minister three questions. First, how was it possible for arms to be smuggled through our customs system at the airport? The dates involved are probably the end of 1979 or the beginning of 1980. Secondly, was any attempted arms smuggling discovered? Thirdly, if it was discovered, were the persons involved prosecuted? Perhaps the Minister will answer those questions when he replies. I do not suggest that the smuggling was extensive but it is disturbing.
The next effort made by the armaments industry was astute. It sought to provide technology to South African industry as a whole so that that industry might be able to provide the elements of an armaments industry there, such as computers, military communications equipment and radars. All were provided so that the growing armaments industry in South Africa might have these essential elements.
The third way was by direct investment. There is a voluntary embargo on new investment in South Africa, including the armaments industry. First, it is only voluntary. Secondly, in the case of many investments it is permitted. I do not have any doubt that the armaments industry of this country took advantage of that situation and invested heavily in the armaments industry in South Africa. I have asked the Government to give details of such investment. They have not felt able to do so. I wish that they had; it would be very interesting.
I have dealt in particular with South Africa. Other speakers will be able to discuss other nations to whom we provide arms despite their denial of human rights. I wish to refer to one only, Indonesia. In Indonesia there are executions of political opponents who have been guilty of violence. That is the climax of a broad denial of human rights. The British representative in Indonesia has sought to persuade the Government to cease these executions but has failed to do so. I wish to suggest that persuasion is not enough. We should not be providing arms to Indonesia and other countries like it which are denying human rights. This is the test. If we as a country provide arms to other territories which are denying human rights, we are failing to accept the challenge which is now being made in the Soviet Union.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I must begin by repeating to the House an apology which I have already made to the noble Lord who has initiated this discussion and to my noble friend the Minister who will conclude it. I shall not be able to remain until the end of the debate. I wish to apologise to the House for this discourtesy.
Secondly, I must express my gratitude with other noble Lords to the noble Lord who has just sat down for beginning a debate on a matter which is of the greatest interest. Why is it that Gladstonian or

605
Wilsonian (I mean of course Woodrow Wilson) policies as a rule are not able to be put into effect? I believe that the simple explanation of why these high-minded reflections of statesmen, particularly those out of power or not in a position of authority, are not carried out is that so often in politics it is a matter of choosing between two evils. That is certainly the case in relation to international politics, perhaps more so than in relation to domestic politics.
The most obvious example which comes to mind is that during the war it was thought essential by this country to give substantial assistance to the Soviet Union, whose attitude to human rights was at that time just as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has described; namely, one of flagrant denial of all rights of discussion, association, or even any criticism of the government concerned. It was on a scale which made it difficult to draw a distinction between it and the Nazi enemy we were fighting. It would no doubt have been possible to take a high-minded attitude towards the Soviet Union in the course of the Second World War. No doubt there were those who died on the Murmansk convoys who might have survived. However, the odds are that had we adopted such an attitude we would not have won the war in the grand alliance with the Soviet Union.
Noble Lords may well be thinking that in referring to the events of the 1940s I am speaking of battles long ago forgotten. That is not the case, because the Second World War was one incident, though a major one, in the general breakdown of world and European civilisation which we have seen since 1914. Since 1945 we have seen problems and challenges similar to those we saw in relation to Nazi Germany coming, on the one hand, from the Soviet Union in the form of Soviet imperialism, or, on the other hand, latterly in the shape of Moslem fundamentalism. It does not look as though we shall get away from this world of evil forces which we feel we must face in order to maintain our civilisation and our liberties.
Therefore it is often necessary, and with great reluctance, to give assistance to odd bedfellows. That is why since 1945 we have found ourselves supporting, propping up or even making alliances with such disparate rulers as Salazar in Portugal, Soeharto in Indonesia—the country to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred—the Shah in Persia or Iran, the kings of the Arab world or General Zia in Pakistan. On all these occasions it is perfectly reasonable to have moral doubts as to the character of the regime concerned, and of course there are disadvantages. However, when the case is examined on its merits—and that is the important point—the advantages have been seen to outweigh the disadvantages.
It would be a different matter if we were living in a world such as seemed to be possible in 1914 or perhaps briefly in the 1920s: a world which was moving slowly and no doubt fumblingly towards a great society in which war was banished; in which the pursuit of power was unknown; in which the support of wars of liberation by one imperial power or another was not to be expected. However, that is not the world in which
606
we live; nor does it seem as though we are likely to live in such a world in the future.
There are two or three additional points which I should like to make. The phrase "human rights" sounds admirable, and of course we are all certain that we enjoy human rights in this country. However, when one defines a country which does or does not practise human rights one gets into many more difficulties than might appear to be the case.
Perhaps I may refer to a country which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not mention—namely, Peru. In my opinion that country has an admirable government trying with great difficulty to resist an intolerable guerrilla movement, the Shining Path Movement. In the course of last year Peru's policemen succumbed, so that for a short time it seemed as if human rights were not being guaranteed there. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to imagine that this was a country which for that reason alone was one which we should not support, if necessary with weapons.
Another case is that of El Salvador. Undoubtedly, that is a country where human rights are not preserved. The security forces are constantly in breach of what we should call normal standards of decency. Nevertheless, the government, with tremendous difficulty in the face of varying support from the United States—based, as a matter of fact, on interpretations of what degree of human rights is being observed there—has managed to struggle through a crisis of very considerable dimensions and has offered a chance of decency—perhaps no more—to its unfortunate, overpopulated country.
I believe no one would say that human rights are preserved in Peru or El Salvador as they are in Western Europe. Nevertheless, there is a chance that human rights will survive there in the future. This is an indication of the difficulties of basing a policy specifically on the question of whether human rights are or are not observed in a particular country.
There is another point which should be borne in mind when considering wars of liberation or guerrilla movements in the Third World—a phrase which we continue to use for want of a better one. Most of those who have taken to the hills in an effort to estabish a revolutionary government in the countries concerned have carefully pondered the reflections of the Brazilian revolutionary Carlos Marighella. He has tried in writing to encourage those who wish to overthrow a democratic or a military regime, and has specifically encouraged them to try to snare the armed forces or the security forces of the country concerned into gross abuses of human rights which themselves will worsen the situation and perhaps cause an international crisis or, at all events, make it much more difficult for the country concerned to secure external assistance. Therefore I think no one would say that the Question, posed with the elegance which one would expect by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is an easy question to decide.
There is another point. From time to time governments have embarked on policies based

607
primarily on human rights. The most obvious recent example is President Carter's Nicaraguan policy. It does not seem to me that the consequence of that was wholly successful. Not only did he mismanage the principal affair with which he was there presented, but when it came to the point a régime was established in Nicaragua which many people—indeed many of those who have fled from Nicaragua—now believe is worse than what preceded it. I know that this is not a view shared by all Members of your Lordships' House, but it is certainly a view which is upheld by many who have fled from Nicaragua in the years since 1979. It is a view also held by some who actually took part in the government which immediately succeeded the dictator Somoza upon his overthrow in 1979.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned South Africa. There is no doubt whatever that Africa as a whole poses a question which concerns most noble Lords when thinking in terms of human rights. It is perhaps not the moment to speculate why it should be that virtually the whole of Africa (not just South Africa) is an area where human rights are not adequately respected. Maybe one of the reasons why this has happened is that the colonial powers, once having established an empire, left too soon. All that can be said, disagreeable though it may be to have to admit it, is that in many of the states of Africa the army is one of the few sources of loyalty and authority. The dissolution of such an army may well result in a worse state of affairs than exists at the present time.
Therefore in general I should like to be sceptical about the thrust of the Question. However, I should make two concessions to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. First, there is no doubt that military aid to a country (particularly a dictatorship) is an act of intervention in the country concerned, and should be looked upon as such by the provider of the weapons. There can be no doubt whatever that it offers an opportunity to play a part in the life of the country
608
concerned. In the past we have not always seen the opportunity which this position has offered to us. The obvious case must be that of Iran in the time of the Shah, where surely it could have been seen that the piling up of armaments concentrated in the hands of a central government, itself increasingly separated from the nation, was likely to result in delusion and disaster, which indeed it did.
However, there is a good example of a sensible use of the provision of external assistance: that has been the operations of the United States in Central America (I am not referring to Nicaragua at the moment) in the last few years since the Central American emergency. Such a view is not very widely held, I know. The United States does not get a very warm hearing in this country or, indeed, in your Lordships' House. It is fair to say that in consequence of assistance on many occasions to the countries concerned we see in that isthmus, not wholly without American responsibility, a chain of democracies, fragile and frail though they may be, which the area has not seen before.
The second point I should like to mention is that we are talking about countries which break human rights. I have suggested that there are occasions when we do not really know exactly what human rights consist of. It is fair to go further than that and to wonder whether or not those countries which are proud of having human rights well established should not be anxious to collaborate more than they do. After all, the world is now dominated by chains of associations of different types of countries; for example the Commonwealth, the French union, the union of Arab states, the union of African states. Some of these unions are based on the idea of geography or religion. In the democratic states we do not have the habit of meeting together and discussing the problems which are facing us and the challenges which we are likely to meet. This is an idea that the Government might like to consider as a real initiative if they wish to preserve on a global scale the liberties of which they, and indeed we, are so proud.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, there are a number of points which I should like to take up arising from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. First, I should like to dispute his contention that politics is always a matter of choosing between two evils. I think that the whole career of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, shows that that is not so. He has frequently—in fact, almost entirely—found himself on the side of the right and the just and has fought for those principles over a career that spans some 80 years. We are very grateful to him this evening for raising such an important issue yet again in your Lordships' House.
I should like also to disagree with the noble Lord's analysis of the effects of the United States policy in Central America. It is not true to say that, as a result of US interference in the isthmus, a chain of democracies has been established. The movement towards democracy in Guatemala, for instance, has nothing to do with United States influence. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will recall, the United States withdrew entirely from giving military aid to the Guatemalan regime, and its relationships with the dictatorship were somewhat cool. Therefore, the advent of a democratic government under President Cerezo is the result of the working of internal forces.
Obviously we hope that that process will continue and develop, and that the military not only will return to barracks but will remain there and will cease to interfere in the rural life of the population; and that the wave of murders and terror which have afflicted the Guatemalan people over a period of some 40 years will at last, under the benign influence of President Cerezo, come to an end. That will be nothing to do with American influence, which has been wholly malign in the isthmus. In particular the American policy on Nicaragua—not under President Carter but since then—has been completely misguided and has brought to nought the efforts of the Contadora powers to reach a peaceful settlement throughout the whole region.
I should like to follow the noble Lord in his discussion of Peru, which is an entirely different case, and, indeed, to enter on a discussion on the sale of arms to regimes such as that of General Zia, the Shah of Persia and so on if there were time. I say only that I thought it was a rather cynical discussion. What happened when our backs were to the wall and we were faced with the threat of occupation by Nazi Germany ought not to be the guideline for our conduct in a period of more or less peace, which has lasted since the end of the Second World War and in which the developments of the theory and practice of human rights, principally in the United Nations, have led us to a completely different view, I hope, of the relationships between states and in particular in regard to the sale of weapons by one state to another when the second state has been a gross and persistent violator of human rights.
I want principally to continue the references of the noble Lord to the case of Indonesia in the context of that country's continued violation of the human rights of the people of that country and in particular in the
610
context of the military conflicts in which it is engaged against the people of East Timor and West Papua. Before I go into that matter in some detail, I want to say that the existing guidelines on arms sales to human rights violators must surely be grossly inadequate when they allow us to trade in weapons of mass destruction with evil dictatorships such as those of Indonesia and Chile and in so-called non-lethal weapons systems with psychopathic regimes such as that of Ayatollah Khomeini's brutal and atavistic theocracy in Iran or the equally thuggish and murderous Government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
In the latter case, we say piously, to quote a Written Answer given by the Foreign Secretary on 29th October 1985:
"We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/85; col 454.]
In other words, we are prepared to sell both sides any defence equipment which in our view only prolongs the war to a minor extent, and we make this casuistical distinction between lethal and non-lethal arms knowing perfectly well that all military equipment enhances the power of its operator to cause death and mutilation.
We supply spare parts and even whole engines for the Centurion tanks used by both sides, and we sold 300 military Land-Rovers to Iraq in July 1985, balancing the export of a 32,000 tonne fleet auxiliary and two 2,500 tonne landing craft to Iran, which were no doubt used to help in the recent crossing of the Shatt el Arab in which tens of thousands of casualties were suffered by both sides.
This is an utterly immoral trade, and if only the governments of the United States, Europe and Israel had joined together in placing a total embargo on all sales of defence equipment to both Iran and Iraq it would have saved countless lives and immense suffering. I say for that reason, and for many others, that the guidelines must be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
Yesterday former President Eanes of Portugal, in an address to foreign correspondents in Lisbon, said that the existing colonial power, de jure, should support financially and by all other means the Fretilin liberation movement's armed struggle in Timor. This faces us with a challenge, and particularly in Britain, because of our just insistence on the sanctity of Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter which prohibits the use of force between states, and particularly the transfer of sovereignty by means of military aggression. It was on this principle of course that we fought a costly war in terms of lives and resources against Argentina.
But how much greater than the crimes of the military junta in Argentina has been that of Indonesia, which first of all invaded the territory of East Timor in December 1975 and continued military operations against the resistance forces there over the years in the face of repeated condemnations by the General Assembly of the United Nations, but also while occupying East Timor grossly and persistently violated the human rights of the inhabitants, massacring and

611
starving to death somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population and imprisoning and torturing many thousands more.
Even today, 11 years after the original invasion, the Indonesian armed forces continue to kill and maim people. As recently as 16th January the Foreign Secretary wrote to me saying:
"Military activity continues in both East Timor and Irian Jaya … We do … believe Indonesian military activity to have been stepped up in those areas where low-level conflict persists".
This confirmed reports such as that of Jill Jolliffe in the Guardian of 21st November 1986, claiming that war was raging in East Timor again. The article claimed that planes and tanks were being used against the guerrilla forces and that large numbers of troops had been deployed there.
I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider once again—and not for the first time—whether Britain should sell arms and other defence equipment to a regime which was engaged in a ethnocidal war against a tiny neighbour, and I call it ethnocidal rather than genocidal, accepting the distinction made by Leo Kuper between the attempt to extinguish a separate cultural and linguistic identity and the eradication of the people themselves.
I believe that the objective of the Indonesians is to integrate the territory of East Timor into their unitary state, and that they will only kill those who resist their plans, just as the Nazis did not systematically exterminate all the inhabitants of occupied France during the last war but only those who continued the struggle for liberation.
The Foreign Secretary replied:
"we do not agree to the supply of equipment which, in our judgment, is likely to be used for continued repression".
He said that the Government:
"are aware of suggestions that British supplied defence equipment may have been used by Indonesian forces in East Timor and Irian Jaya, but to the best of our knowledge these suggestions have never been substantiated".
We believe, however, that evidence exists to show that our equipment probably has been used for internal repression, including the attacks on the people of East Timor and West Papua.
We supplied, over a period of some years a number of Saladin, Saracen and Ferret armoured cars to Indonesia. I cannot be specific about either the numbers or the dates because the Government always do their best to conceal knowledge of these transactions from the public at large. But Amnesty International has photographs which have been published—I have one here—showing armoured cars being used against student demonstrators in 1978. The authenticity of these pictures has never been challenged and it is logical to assume that if a government buy large numbers of armoured vehicles and they have no obvious external threat they will use them against their own people.
I should emphasise that in addition to the continuation of the struggles in East Timor and West Papua and the student unrest I have mentioned, there have also been crackdowns against Moslem protesters,
612
for example, at Tanjung Priok, Jakarta in 1984 in which the death toll has been estimated variously at somewhere between 60 and up to 200 people. Troops opened fire without warning on unarmed demonstrators. Although the armoured cars may not have been deployed on that occasion they would probably have been brought out if the protest had continued, but they are always there as a threat against anybody who challenges the regime.
The second major series of arms contracts which we have entered into with the Indonesians has been for the supply of Hawk advanced trainer aircraft. The first deal for eight aircraft was concluded in April 1978 when the aggression against East Timor was at its height. But when my honourable friend Sir Russell Johnston condemned this deal in correspondence, the then Minister of State, the late Lord Goronwy Roberts, told him:
"certain foreign observers who have been allowed to visit the territory have reported that the scale of skirmishing there has been greatly reduced".
That was in a letter dated 29th June 1978. It is not entirely accurate to refer to a war in which at least 100,000, probably 200,000, people died as "skirmishing". The letter is a good example of how British governments have spread deception about the level of Indonesian military operations over the years, no doubt quite unintentionally.
As the unnamed foreign observers, with very few exceptions, who have visited East Timor since the occupation 11 years ago have been stooges of the regime, are prepared to accept the lies and propaganda which have been fed to them by the Indonesian forces, the parliamentary Human Rights Group, of which I have the honour to be chairman, wrote to the Indonesian authorities some four years ago asking whether we could send some of our members to visit the territory to assess the situation for themselves. We were refused point blank.
On 1st October last year I wrote, as chairman of the group, to the Indonesian Foreign Minister. Our colleague, Robert Tickner MP, the chairman of the Australian parliamentary Human Rights Group, wrote simultaneously to the Indonesian Foreign Minister via the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. Our friend Mr. Tickner received an answer after some weeks that it was inconvenient for a visit by Members of Parliament from Australia and Britain to go to East Timor because of the preparations that were taking place for the so-called elections in April.
We had a reply from the ambassador here dated 11th December saying:
"We regret to inform you that your request has been unsuccessful".
The ambassador did not explain why our visit was not welcome but obviously it had nothing whatever to do with the elections. I suspect the Indonesians would like entirely to prevent the outside world from knowing what they are doing in East Timor. Particularly they do not want anybody to observe the military operations that are currently taking place in the territory.
In the nature of things, it is very difficult for us to prove that British weapons are being used. I say here

613
that I do not think the onus of proof should be on us at all. The Government, with their far greater resources, their ability to use intelligence from American satellites, an ambassador in Jakarta and other observers who may have been more successful than we have in penetrating the territories of East Timor and West Papua, know much more about military operations than we do and they should take full account of that intelligence. However, the Jakarta newspaper, Kompas, reported on 14th January that a new air force squadron using Hawk fighter aircraft was established in mid-January,
"for purposes of advanced training and tactical combat".
The aircraft were said to be fully equipped with rockets and machine guns for ground attack operations.
Whenever we have raised the question of the sale of Hawks in the past, we have always been told that only the trainer version was on offer. Now we have the statement of the air force chief of staff, Air Marshal Suhardi, that another version equipped with weapons is actually in service. The United Nations representative of the East Timor freedom fighters, José Ramos Horta, has said that the aircraft, fully equipped with weapon systems, have been sited at the military airfield at Baucau in East Timor.
I shall not at this hour catalogue the rest of the arsenal we have provided to Indonesia over the years. Let me just say that if we abandon the principles of self-determination and of the inviolability of national boundaries we are embarking on a very dangerous course indeed. The island of Timor may be remote and on a world scale its people may not be of great significance, but they are heroic people who have fought tenaciously for the rights enjoyed by nearly every other former colonial people in the world. If we not only fail to support them politically, as former President Eanes urges, but, on the contrary, we actively encourage the aggressors in their illegal and brutal occupation, we are fatally undermining the international rule of law, the maintenance of which is necessary for the survival of the whole world.
10.2 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, in welcoming the debate on this Question and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for introducing it so clearly and so sincerely, perhaps I may say at the outset that I am firmly opposed to the supply of arms and even of non-military material such as clothing, transport, and so on, for countries which flagrantly and persistently violate human rights.
However, I do not want to go into too much detail on this matter because noble Lords speaking subsequently will doubtless expand on it with more ability than I could command. I want to devote the rest of my short speech to considering the extent of human rights violations in two countries which in my view are particularly bad offenders. I refer here to Iran, which the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Avebury, mentioned, and also Israel, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, himself.
Let me deal first with Iran. Your Lordships may remember that I had a Starred Question on 26th January about the extent of human rights violations in Iran and I received an Answer which struck me as
614
encouraging. I will say no more than that. But whatever the representations we and other governments may have made to the Iranians, they appear to have had very little effect.
In a supplementary question, I said that human rights violations in Iran were on a larger and more horrifying scale than anywhere else in the world, including even Latin America. No one contradicted me at the time, though I see the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, puts South Africa at the top of the list. He may be right. I have never been to South Africa but I have a good deal of information on Iran.
According to well-documented evidence produced by the Mujahedin opposition which I have studied—and I have one of their leaflets which is widely circulated in Britain and which some of your Lordships may have seen—many thousands of Iranians have suffered torture, some to the point of death; and many have been children, some as young as 13 or 14. For this horrible task 3,771 torturers were employed in 576 prisons throughout Iran in the past few years. There are full details of that in the booklet to which I have referred, and we are told that there are 64 different types of torture which are employed, most of them too horrible to mention in your Lordships' House. However, I shall mention a few of the less terrible: the drawing rack, burying alive, suspension of the prisoner by a meat hook, blocking the urinary tract and burning alive. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pricking up his ears.
According to Khomeini:
"Killing is a mercy, for it seeks to rectify the person. A person sometimes cannot be rectified until he is cut up and heated up".
Khomeini has also justified the appalling slaughter of children, some as young as 12 or 13, in the war against Iraq. This has been done in flagrant violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. In Khomeini's own words:
"So long as there is a need for troops at the front, it is obligatory to go to the front and parental consent is not needed".
The total of children killed so far in this terrible war probably runs into six figures and may even approach half a million. The Guards Corps Minister has disclosed that during one offensive alone in 1984, 57 per cent. of the fighting force were children. He has also indicated that the total number killed or wounded in this engagement was about 50,000.
In 1986, Akrami, the regime's education minister, was quoted in an interview with the newspaper Kayhan. He said:
"Last year more than 100,000 schoolboys, 30,000 teachers and about 8,000 students from teacher training colleges and technical colleges served at the front".
The Iranian press also published horrifying accounts, which some of your Lordships may have seen since they have been referred to in the British press, of boy soldiers sent in waves to clear minefields and facing almost certain death.
I have said enough about Iran; I could have said very much more but I hope that I have presented a fairly convincing picture of the extent of human rights violations in that area. Let me now turn briefly to human rights violations committed by the Israelis against the Arab population in the occupied areas and particularly in the Gaza Strip. In this area, the fate of

615
the Palestinians under Israeli rule is particularly harsh. Three-quarters of the population of the strip are refugees and the military occupation has been particularly heavyhanded. Furthermore, the economy has been systematically crushed by petty restrictions imposed by the Israelis.
I have a Motion down in my name for a short debate, and I hope that I may be lucky in the next draw, which I believe is tomorrow. If I am not, I shall re-table the Motion as an Unstarred Question to call attention to the situation in Lebanon and the Arab areas of what was formerly Palestine which are occupied by the Israelis. However, let me make three brief points in conclusion in referring to human rights violations in the Israeli occupied areas, and particularly in the Gaza Strip.
First, unlike the West Bank, the Israelis have never allowed elections in Gaza. Secondly, repression has been manifesting itself in many forms, particularly in Gaza, once more, ever since 1970. Many student demonstrators and some merely suspected of causing the trouble have been shot. Thousands of people—the relatives of suspected activists—have been detained in concentration camps in Syria and elsewhere, and thousands have been dispatched to Jordan. Thirdly, and finally, the Israelis have taken over the control of and access to the water resources in the Gaza Strip as a means of curbing the influence and power of the inhabitants. I have spoken about this matter on two, if not three, previous occasions. This list is by no means comprehensive but the hour is late and I do not wish to add to it.
Many other countries fall into the same category of flagrant human rights violations. I have referred to particular countries but, as we all know, many countries commit minor violations of human rights—I think 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the countries in the world. I am not concerned with them tonight. Uganda is one example of a flagrant violator. I hope that we may hear a little about this from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who like myself knows the area. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the extent of human rights violations in the two countries I have considered.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it would be presumptuous of me to thank my noble friend Lord Brockway or to congratulate him on this debate. He and I have worked together for the same causes for 50 years and the Question which he has put down tonight is only a part of that very long association.
We are talking about armaments expenditure in the past 12 months of 900 billion dollars. The total world military expenditure in one day alone would finance two World Health Organisation programmes to combat malaria. The cost of one nuclear submarine would fund the education budget of 23 developing countries inhabited by 160 million children. That is the scale of the subject before us tonight; but how is our country involved in this massive expenditure?
I do not propose to deal with specific countries. I am simply concerned with the Government's policy. Britain is among a variety of countries which provide
616
training for the police and military personnel of many countries, a large number with extremely poor human rights records. It is not only governments who follow this policy. Our Government allow private companies to take the same actions, to advertise their training programmes and to use the British Army equipment exhibition. If there is any doubt as to whether profit comes before principle in relation to the training of terrorists, it will interest the House to know that the British company AMAC offered to provide a 44-week training course for 17 Libyan security personnel. That course included such subjects as poisons, bugging, explosives, kidnapping and a whole variety of killing techniques. This country not only allows but promotes the training and the provision of a whole set of repressive forms of equipment.
I know that the Minister may quote—I hope he will not because it is irrelevant—the Export of Goods (Control) Order, but that is permissive. It is not mandatory. Under that order goods can be and are being exported for use in the destruction of human rights; yet most of this activity is kept from Parliament. We are never told about it. When we ask questions we are told that to give the information would be against national security. This Government are actively engaged in the promotion of arms sales. With their belief in market forces they consider that the sale of arms is a part of the national economy, and they have made it so. Britain is now the fourth largest exporter of weapons and is estimated to be the second largest exporter of equipment for internal security.
It is British policy actively to promote the sale of arms and of equipment for internal security. For example, in the Ministry of Defence itself the defence sales organisation was set up specifically to promote and to market British military and security equipment. It uses exhibitions. For example, it uses the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot. However, entry to that exhibition is by invitation only and we are not even told who is invited. The Ministry of Defence decides who shall be invited but the British public is not even allowed to see what is being exhibited there.
There is one specific question that I should like to put to the Minister who is to reply. How does he defend and how does he explain the decision taken on 21st November last at the World Bank when the United Kingdom voted for a loan to be granted to the Pinochet regime in Chile? Even the United States abstained. The United Kingdom voted in favour. It was only by 1.7 per cent. that the loan was eventually granted. Why was the United Kingdom on the side of supporting and financing the regime which is notorious throughout the world for its murders, its tortures and its oppression? We are talking about what my noble friend Lord Brockway was once associated with in a notable book—The Merchants of Death.
These are indeed the merchants of death—the merchants of death and torture throughout the world—with weapons and materials that are built and manufactured in this country. Why is it that this Government, who profess to believe in human rights if it is politically convenient when facing the Soviet Union, do not take action to ensure that whatever is produced in this country is never used for the purposes of torture, killing or maiming?

617
I commend to this House the proposal that has been put forward by Amnesty International for a new law. I believe that it is worthwhile quoting the three clauses of that law of which the first reads:
"The law should provide that:

1. All military, security and police transfers be publicly disclosed in advance;

2. Regular reports be issued by Her Majesty's Government on the human rights situation in the receiving country;

3. Effective channels be established for Her Majesty's Government to receive information from non-governmental organisations".

The second clause reads:
"The law should prohibit the transfer to other countries of military security and police equipment and training where these can reasonably be assumed to contribute to human rights violations within Amnesty International's mandate".
The third clause reads:
"The law should prohibit the manufacture of equipment which can only he used for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners. Prohibited items should include: gas chambers, guillotines, thumb screws, leg irons, and gang chains".
Will the British Government pledge themselves to give support to such a humane law?
10.22 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I confess that when I saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on this Motion last week when I looked at the Order Paper I did not anticipate that the debate would take place at so late an hour. I thought also that it would give me an opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his consistent commitment to the cause of peace, disarmament and human rights. It is a concern which I am happy to say I share with him. He must feel somewhat encouraged to see that there are no fewer than six speakers from the Alliance Benches here tonight contributing to the support for his cause.
I expect that in his reply the Minister will deal with some of the difficulties in the application of the Motion that is before the House. Undoubtedly, one of them will be that if Britain does not supply armaments then other countries may and probably will do so. I have never found that to be a very convincing argument. Certainly it does not stop the flow of armaments. However, I have never thought it good theology to argue that if someone else sins that justifies you in sinning also. So I suspect that there is a case for unilateral action that establishes Britain's commitment to some moral standards on this issue.
Then there is the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, of the definition of human rights, because human rights vary from country to country. However, in the Helsinki Agreement some kind of international standards were established as being the basics of human rights observation. I suspect that it is those standards that we might apply in making our assessment of the countries which violate human rights. It is a case where we can, without risks, take unilateral action.
A good deal has been said tonight about the sale of arms to Africa. I watched the six o'clock news tonight. I saw ghastly pictures. of children dying in a large African state. They were the kind of pictures that stimulated the people's great support for Band Aid.
618
Children are still dying of starvation in many parts of Africa. The news bulletins show those desperately sad pictures.
At the same time and in the same country young men were shown carrying arms and fighting a civil war. There is no doubt that the merchants of death described by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby—I well remember the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, many years ago—who travel the African continent selling arms to countries such as Uganda, not for defence against neighbouring states but for the suppression of rival political groups within the country, are denying those countries the opportunity of buying the necessities of life—the food to relieve starvation. We must condemn that kind of business. As has already been said in this debate that is true of a large part of the African continent.
Two weeks ago I happened to be in Trinidad in the West Indies. It recently had an election. The government which had been in power for 30 years was defeated. The opposition won 32 seats and the government won three seats in the freely conducted election which was debated in the press, at public meetings and so on.
The new government was installed last week and the new Prime Minister took over. I asked myself how in that island, as in other parts of the West Indies, the democratic tradition is applied. It could not happen in many African states because the army would probably move in in defence of the government. It is largely because that island does not have an army that there is no power struggle. It has a police force but no army. It occurred to me that there is some relationship between the provision of arms to countries and the survival of democracy in those countries. The example I have given bears that out.
If we pursue the policy suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, we can make some contribution towards stopping the free flow of arms. We can encourage international respect for human rights. I agree with him that opportunities are opening up in the world. I am sure that people are sick and tired of what is going on. I am sure that they will respond to moral leadership. I am sure that the changes taking place in the Soviet Union present opportunities for initiatives in that field.
In this country we spend 5 per cent. of our GDP on armaments. In the United States it is 6 per cent. In the Soviet Union it is 16 per cent. Mr. Gorbachev realises full well that that colossal armaments burden is crippling any opportunities he has for economic prosperity. Changes are taking place to open up opportunities for initiatives.
I should like to see the Government take advantage of those initiatives from time to time. It is not a party matter; it is a matter in which the future of mankind is involved. It is too easy to say that we preserve peace through the uneasy balance of the nuclear weapons which each major power has at its disposal. It is a very uneasy, unhealthy balance that thus exists. I hope that as a result of this debate we may get some commitment from the Government that they are to break through in this field, break traditional attitudes and habits and give people some sense of moral leadership.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I shall add only a few remarks in support of my noble friend Lord Brockway. As some noble Lords may know, just before Christmas I visited Chile, a country—as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has pointed out—with scarcely the best human rights record in the world. I saw and heard evidence that arbitrary arrest, incommunicado confinement and torture are alive and well in that country. I should like briefly to describe an experience with a moral which I had when I visited Valparaiso, the main port and naval base of Chile. It is a fascinating place with a ring of very steep hills covered with precariously perched shanty dwellings above the port area. The main avenue has royal palms, purple jacaranda trees and a statue of Admiral Lord Cochrane who, with British Government approval, assisted the Chileans to gain independence in the 1820s.
A sailor, on discovering that I was British, pointed out in the harbour a destroyer which we had sold to Chile in 1984. It is now called "Admiral Lord Cochrane". Formerly it was HMS "Antrim", launched in the 1960s and subsequently fitted with guided missiles. This Chilean sailor was somewhat surprised when I expressed less than wholehearted admiration and approval of this transaction.
My purpose in describing this incident is to illustrate how deals such as this can be used by repressive governments to enhance their standing in the eyes of their own people and in the rest of the world. They might say, for instance, "If Great Britain—the cradle of democracy and freedom—can sell our country such a powerful warship then they must approve of our government." Much is made in the media in Chile of the arrival of such a prestigious ship, and HMS "Glamorgan", just delivered to the Chilean Navy, will doubtless also receive a big reception if it has not already arrived in Chile.
The Government have said that they do not like to sell weapons which can be specifically used against the civilian population. In the first place this is not true. They do sell weapons which can be and are used against the civilian population. In Chile, for instance, Hawker Hunters attacked and destroyed the Moneda Palace in 1973—a time when President Allende was killed. The guns of the renamed "Admiral Cochrane" could easily be turned against the shanty town section of Valparaiso if the inhabitants were to become troublesome to the government.
However, it is the boost to the credibility of the Pinochet regime that these arms sales represent which I think is most to be regretted. The Government make verbal condemnations of human rights abuses by the Chilean Government, but these will carry little weight with such a military regime when we give them what they most want, expressed in language which they understand—language spoken by guns and missiles.
I feel that the Government should stop selling arms or supporting loans to Chile, as my noble friend has pointed out, or admit, if they do so, that they approve of the present regime. Their present policy of condemning abuses in Chile while supplying arms surely is hypocritical.
10.35 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for providing me with the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House the specific case of the country of Morocco.
I understand that the UK is supplying arms to the Moroccan army, and that included in the inventory are 105mm field guns, general purpose machine guns and mobile radio transmitters. The overseas trade statistics for 1986 include arms sales to Morocco, but these are somewhat obscured due to the fact that included in the figures, for some curious and I suspect devious reason, are our exports of gold and other minerals.
However, according to section 9 of the statistics, under the heading "Morocco", we exported goods to the value of £1,305 million. In attempting to obtain information concerning the export of military equipment from the UK to Morocco, I was informed by the Library that the information I sought was under the "suppressed information" category at the Ministry of Defence. So perhaps the figures do not tell the whole story.
It is well known and well documented that the present regime in Morocco is oppressive, highly obnoxious and often barbarous, its activities bordering on the medieval. That is the description of a country which says it is pro-Western and supports democracy. We are even having its ruler, King Hassan, on a state visit in July. There is no question that its government denies some of the basic human rights to its citizens, especially those who dare to criticise it.
It is engaged in a war in the Western Sahara which has been dragging on for 11 long years. Morocco's territorial claims on the Western Sahara have all been rejected by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations and the OAU. Thousands of refugees from that war have fled to neighbouring Algeria where they have been living in tent cities for all of those 11 years. They fled because they did not enjoy having napalm, cluster and phosphorous bombs dropped on them. Happily, none of these revolting weapons originated in the UK. They all came from the United States.
Moroccan soldiers and administrators control all towns including the capital city of El Aiyoun but the main bulk of the Moroccan army has retreated behind a fortified wall of sand built by them across 2,500 kilometres of desert.
Those Western Saharans who chose to remain in and those who were unable to escape from the occupied zone have since been subjected to all manner of restrictions and persecutions by the Moroccan authorities. There are numerous confirmed reports from reliable sources that many thousands of these Western Saharans have vanished without trace.
The Foreign Office insists that the UK is neutral and has maintained a neutral stance in this dispute. However, I have photographic evidence that that is not so. My pictures show clearly from marks and plates on the field guns that these are of British manufacture. They are modern, sophisticated weapons captured from the Moroccan army. Furthermore, the state visit,

621
already referred to, indicates that the UK's position is far from neutral. Can we really say, on the one hand, that we treasure, value and support democracy, freedom, the rights of people everywhere to live in their own country unmolested, and that sovereignty is non-negotiable, as in the case of the Falklands; and yet, on the other hand, support regimes that not only deny basic human rights to their own citizens, but aggressively seek to impose those same squalid standards of sub-human behaviour on their neighbours, by supplying that same regime with military weapons?
I suggest humbug and double-standards are operating in the name of trade. The profit motive conquers all, including scruples. We send Morocco arms and tourists. They, in return, send us fruit and street drugs, as the recent news from the Spanish police has clearly shown.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the speech which my noble friend Lord Brockway made in asking his Question would have been a remarkable speech from anyone, as was one from him at any time during his long life, but made as it was in what I think is approaching his 99th year it was little short of miraculous.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will celebrate that fact when replying by on this occasion actually trying to answer the Question, not only the general Question but possibly one or two of the supplementaries as well.
I read in the press that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been telling the young Tories that Labour will initiate a communist state in this country. That nonsense does him no credit. If he believes it, we must all start worrying whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is losing his grasp, to use a phrase used in Washington. But if he does not believe it he was insulting his audience and perhaps insulting himself.
In reality, we have to concern ourselves now about this Government's mania for secrecy. This notably embraces the arms trade, except—as my noble friend Lord Hatch has pointed out—for the representatives of repressive governments such as that of Turkey who were freely invited to the last British arms exhibition, from which our own people were excluded. I understand from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, an organisation very reliable for its information, that 28 of the countries which were invited were cited in the Amnesty report Torture in the Eighties. They were invited to see equipment—riot control equipment, guns and surveillance equipment—which would enable them to repress their own people a little more efficiently.
I should like to say a few words specifically about Turkey. Turkey took over the chair of the Council of Europe last year. Yet they were suspended from membership of that body three years earlier because of the military government's violations of human rights. The difference today is not that that repression has
622
ceased but that it is now taking place behind the facade of a civilian regime.
NATO has demonstrated all along that it does not care what kind of government a country has so long as it is anti-Soviet. The same willingness to team up with repressive and torturing regimes so long as they are anti-communist is now being demonstrated in the Council of Europe, and there are even signs of it in the EC. They do not seem to understand—neither does the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, appear to understand; I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber—that this undermines their claim to be the goodies against the baddies. It is no use prating about the free world when you are shaking hands with torturers, who go on torturing after you have shaken their hands and sent them arms.
In that regard, Mr. Norman Lamont, when he was Minister of State for Defence, a predecessor of the noble Lord in that respect, led a team last year to strengthen the ability of the civilian government in Turkey in military respects, increasing among other things their ability to repress their own people. He took with him a very impressive delegation. Among them were leading representatives from Plessey, English Electric, Marconi, Thorn-EMI, Westland, GKN and Vickers, all of them eager and willing to sell anything they could to Turkey, with its government's permission.
The notion that you are going to make conditions—"We will only sell you this provided you are good boys"—is negated by the fact that so many people are trying to get in there and sell these armaments. Therefore, the possibility of laying down conditions under which such armaments shall be used is reduced. This delegation which was widely publicised in Turkey was ignored by our own media. That visit was preceded by a visit from the civilian president of Turkey, President Ozal. He was wined and dined at 10 Downing Street by the Prime Minister, and was surrounded by all the arms manufacturers, no doubt anxious to get a dip at the gravy—even though perhaps it tasted a little odd.
It also has to be borne in mind that a large number of Greek Cypriots are held hostage by Turkey, but we hear precious little about their human rights and nothing at all from the Government and their supporters. Where are they? Turkey is of course in illegal occupation of a large part of northern Cyprus. This unsavoury Turkish regime, in common with other dictatorships and pseudo-democracies which keep themselves in office by repression and torture, has a defence agreement with the United States, whose claim to be a defender of the free world would be laughable if it were not such a tragic farce. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that the frightful Mr. Perle, who runs the American Defense Department when Mr. Weinberger is away making arrangements for Armageddon, has announced that a substantial American contribution to the modernisation of Turkey's forces will be forthcoming in order to make them even more formidable than they are now.
To be fair, the Turkish Government have the problem of trying to counter the threat of Moslem fundamentalism in their own country, which is

623
perhaps the most illiberal force at work in the world today and rivals as perhaps the most dangerous one the Christian fundamentalism which has been professed by President Reagan and other Republican leaders. Irrationality is exceptionally alarming in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons capable of destroying us all. Even so, that is no excuse for further increasing the armaments of a government who have just sentenced a former Prime Minister to imprisonment for speeches made during a recent by-election campaign. Of course I refer to a former Prime Minister of Turkey. Perhaps we had better advise the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, to steer clear of Greenwich for the next week or two.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was regarded by our present Prime Minister as being soft on trade unions. There is no doubt that the Turks are showing the way to Mrs. Thatcher by disbanding their TUC and putting a large number of trade unionists in gaol. When I last heard, the sentences were still under appeal. The world will be a better and a safer place when the present Turkish regime is replaced by a properly elected one. The present regime was elected under circumstances which would not have been countenanced for a moment in Nicaragua, for example.
We ought to be telling the Government meanwhile that we have had enough of their particular brand of Tory fundamentalism and we want to get back to the democratic socialism which brought us through the years after the war. In the meantime, let the Government make it clear to the Americans that we will not take part in the game of further arming a regime which the European Commission of Human Rights has described as having:
"one of the worst human rights records in Europe".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to reply will address himself not only to the points raised by my noble friend but also for once to one or two of the points which I have sought to raise.
10.50 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I recall that in the early 1970s I was associated with a company that was selling hand-powered tools to a certain African country. We had arranged for a young African salesman to come here to learn the art of selling these tools in his own country, which happened to be Kenya. After his first weekend here—and the factory where he was learning was in the suburbs of London—I met him and asked him how he had spent his weekend. He had been to that most famous of places of public entertainment, Hyde Park Corner. He looked at me and said, "I have seen the most astonishing thing. I have seen a place where people are allowed to say the most incredible things". What he meant by "incredible things" was that people were allowed to speak their minds. We all know that there are all kinds and manner of speakers at Hyde Park Corner. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has been a distinguished speaker there for many years.
What that young man had learnt in his first weekend was something of the human rights that are not readily available in a central African country. I cannot tell your Lordships how many hand-powered tools he sold when he had learnt his skills and went back to Africa,
624
but we had certainly sold him something: we had sold him the idea of freedom of speech, the idea of a way of life that is totally unknown and unimagined in parts of Africa, even in those countries that are often held up as examples of what an African country should be, such as Kenya, a country where human rights have not been greatly evident in recent times.
The hour is late and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the subject. I too came into the debate to pay homage to him, a man who has stood up for morality and human dignity for 80 years. A man who can make a speech of such enormous power at his great age deserves support.
Talking of support, I do not think that it is of any significance, but it seems odd to me that we on this side of the House total some 12—or could it be an unlucky 13?—noble Lords, yet on the other side I see present only one noble Lord. It would be unfair to draw the conclusion that we on the Opposition Benches have the most concern about human rights.
In recent times there has been a major public opinion shift. After all, it is now a part of the policy of the Labour Party and a part of the policy of the Alliance to include these matters in their manifestos for the next election. Adding to that those members of the Tory Party who also share concern for human rights, it gives a considerable majority of the British public who are concerned about these matters.
I was concerned about something in the character of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, a noted and distinguished author and academic, whose books I have much enjoyed. However, for me he seemed to muddle the idea of what is the right of a human being, that right of which people are being deprived in many countries. It would not be too difficult for me to explain to my African salesman. It is of course a freedom that we have here and that we all take for granted—a freedom from the threat of institutionalised violence, which is so common in many of the African countries that I know well and, indeed, which we all know in countries in Latin America and other places that noble Lords have mentioned.
Many do not appreciate how such institutionalised violence threatens people down to the very bottom of society. Indeed, many of those people—the poor, the uneducated, students who express dissenting views—are most at risk from this institutionalised violence in societies that have the kind of regimes of which we, thankfully, are free.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that this institutionalised violence of which he speaks is actively and positively supported by the United States administration in the resources which it provides to the Contras in Nicaragua?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I would agree broadly with what he says, though I should keep off that particular area of the world because I do not have any personal knowledge of it. But I would certainly say that the United States Government and indeed the British Government have appeared to be unsatisfactory in their support of regimes in many

625
parts of the developing world, turning a blind eye in a cynical way to the kind of regime which would be totally unacceptable here to anybody of any political persuasion even on the far Right of the spectrum. To that extent I would agree with the noble Lord.
But as other noble Lords have mentioned—and I recall particularly an eloquent speech by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea—there is a kind of cynical confusion of the importance of commercial and business matters with that of morality. That is something which probably has gone on through our history. After all, we were the promoters of the economics of slavery for 130 years. It took a vociferous and energetic minority to impose its morality then. What is going to happen now is that public opinion is going to be brought to bear. It is beginning to be. Public opinion is becoming more and more important in our lives.
Perhaps I may mention two aspects of military training, and I will then come on to the question about Uganda asked of me by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Uganda is an extreme country. It is a country which is not typical of all African countries. When it was a British protectorate it was somewhat of a jewel. It was the centre of education in British East Africa. It was a country with artificial borders and with potential tribal and racial problems always present. After independence it did not take long before those problems came to the fore, and the country has not recovered to this day from the regimes of Amin and Obote. Even now considerable breaches of human rights are sustained.
That leads on to the military training aspect of what the Government encourage. During the period when we supplied military training and advice to Uganda I do not think that it did any good at all. In fact all those people were doing was training the people who were supposed to do the training. There was no actual feeding through of expertise to where it really mattered, which at that time was with the bands of brigands dressed up as soldiers who were committing atrocities on an enormous scale.
During that period, and even now, we seemed to turn our backs on the reality of the situation. I suggest that it was for us a political presence. It gave us an opportunity to involve ourselves in the country, to observe and to see which way it was going to go politically. I asked a Question in your Lordships' House just after the Obote regime had fallen about the function of certain private companies in this country which had been giving advice on the use of helicopters to the Obote government during its last days and training people in anti-guerrilla warfare. I was told by the Minister on that day that there was nothing whatever that one could do about the activities in the private area. I found that very surprising because it seems to me to be a matter of enormous concern that we can be so vociferous about individuals involving themselves as mercenaries while we go along with what seems to me to be corporate mercenary activity of this kind. I should hope that if an Alliance Government came to power we should see very strict control over such activity.
Public concern is there. Public concern needs to be activated and a change in the law is certainly needed to
626
control the supply of weapons, whether they be purely military, whether they be security weapons or whether they involve other products used in countries which have endured a long and sustained period of breach of human rights.
On that note I sit down and say that this debate has contributed strongly to the feeling in this country that something has to be done for us to create a stronger moral stand in this sphere.
11.1 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, many noble Lords believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is a marvel to be able to inaugurate a debate as he has done this evening. I pay particular attention to his words about recent changes in the Soviet Union and the effect this ought to have on our own policy-making here. It is by now almost worthy of the name "a Russian spring". If one spends enough hours reading what is coming out from Gorbachev and his immediate colleagues, one has a very clear memory of the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia; the way they talked. One's first thought is, "Oh, God, I hope they don't go too far". One's second thought is, "Well, there is no Soviet Union to invade them and stamp on it". Gorbachev is running a risk, but only a domestic risk, not an international risk.
We all listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, had to say. I agree with him that the solution to the problem under debate is not easy. That is about all I agree with in what he said. I am sorry that he was not able to stay to hear the rest of the debate, but I should like to express a word of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, the Minister, who is now alone, along with the duty Whip, on the Government Benches. We are grateful to him for staying with us while we discuss matters which are of interest, we think, to a large number of people in the country.
My first employer in this world was the Royal Navy. My second was Her Majesty's Foreign Office, and the job it very unwisely gave me was to represent it in an alarming body called the Arms Working Party, which supposedly controlled the export of arms from this country—a job which I did for three years. I learnt from this that money and prosperity are very desirable indeed. I also learnt the lengths to which any government—this was a Labour Government under Ernie Bevin—would go to secure them. The one great rule was, "Get the money". There was only one possible reservation that might be entered and that was, "Might it hurt us? If the people who want these arms might use them against us, to let them have them would be too silly. If not, we will take the money".
I note that in the 35 years between those two events even that has gone and we were ready to sell warships to the Argentinian dictatorship at a moment when it should have been quite visible to the Government that there was at least a risk that they would be used against us; and they were. I compare this with Lord Rea's reminiscence of Valparaiso—it is the same story really, except that there are no islands off Chile that belong to us.
I think it was during the same time in the Arms Working Party—I am sorry to be autobiographical—

627
that I had what struck me as a great insight: that was about the economic nature of arms manufacture. I learnt then that it was uniquely non-productive. If you manufacture capital goods, you manufacture something which in itself creates wealth, commodities which are wealth. If you manufacture consumer goods you manufacture something which people will willingly buy and use for a while. If you manufacture the necessities of life you are sustaining human life itself. All of this can be regarded as wealth-creating.
If you manufacture stupid little toys—shall we say one-arm bandits or sweeties with no food value?—you are manufacturing something which is economically and morally quite neutral. Lastly, there is the category of armaments where you are manufacturing something which not only, if it is ever used, destroys wealth and human life but, even if it is not used, creates none and guarantees the consumption of the tax revenues of the state which owns it. So it behoves us to think whether there is anything we can do, as a race throughout the world, to get beyond this on economic grounds if on no others.
In those days there was one other thing which we would not do in the Arms Working Party. We would not sell arms to any country which was at war with another country to which we were also selling arms—or to any country which was likely to be at war with such a country. That was considered to be quite immoral, and it was supposed to be the duty of the government of the day to make up their mind which side they wanted to win and to sell arms to that side only; and, if they could not make up their mind, to sell arms to neither.
There was an historical case we all quoted to each other, some time in the 1860s, I think, when the Government of India and the India Office were backing one side in a war in the Yemen and the Foreign Office were backing the other side. "Never", we said to each other, "shall we get into that pickle again." I am not sure whether we have or have not, but some countries in the world have, and I believe that if we have not yet we may do so quite soon.
Before going further into that, let us look beyond the matter of controlled and approved arms exports—I mean controlled and approved by the Government—to the matter of the black market. Almost every night at the moment you can watch television programmes about the goings-on at an office in Victoria Street, a quarter of a mile from here, where the television people appear to be quite certain that they have evidence that Iranians are illegally buying arms in this country for export to Iran in their war against Iraq. Many noble Lords—and I among them—have put down Questions about this. We have got the answer: "We don't have any evidence that any crime has been committed." On one occasion, greatly daring, I went further and asked another question: "What steps are you taking to try to find if there is any evidence?"—to which came the standard answer that such matters are not discussed in a democracy.
To get a real grip of the legal arms exports, which are of course a thousand times the illegal ones, from every country, we shall have to look at the effect of the wealthy part of the world in the North on the poor part
628
in the South, particularly through international organisations. We shall have to come to grips with the fact that the IMF once considered the Argentinian nuclear industry and rapped Argentina over the knuckles not for building up a weapons manufacturing capability, which they are doing, but for having a nuclear industry in the public sector and not in the private sector, as it should have been.
We shall have to face up to the fact that the IMF and the World Bank are giving and lending money to Brazil, which is then used for what is now the biggest third world arms industry. They are making cluster bombs in that country and ground-to-ground tactical military missiles. We are paying for this, and they are selling them to yet poorer countries down the line.
We shall have to come to grips with the politics of international arms dealing. We must remember who we are dealing with around the world—what sort of people we are dealing with. We must remember that the Saudi Arabians got AWACS—which they wanted in order to keep an eye on what was going on in Israel for the benefit of the whole Arab world; so one understands the motive—out of the United States by promising to pay money later on, on demand, to anticommunist forces somewhere in the world which the United States would have the right to specify. They were to be anti-communist forces of President Reagan's choice.
I think that we must look at the standard and the precedent which is being set by the United States overall in the matter of arms exports. The United States had a policy about hostages, which it went to great pains, very justifiably, to urge upon the rest of us. And the rest of us in Western Europe, broadly speaking, adopted it. It was that we do not barter for hostages, since that only encourages hostage-takers to take more hostages. So much is only common sense. It is probably true to say that the biggest hostage-taker in the experience of the United States was Iran, if one includes their own embassy people and what Iran is now doing in Lebanon.
There was a trial going on in New York of certain American private citizens who had been detected selling arms to Iran. That was against American law. The trial was nearing a conclusion, amid public approval, and there was about to be a conviction when it was revealed that the United States Government itself was selling arms to Iran in order to buy back hostages taken by Iran. As a rider to that bright idea, the United States was arranging for Iran to pay part of the purchase price for the arms to the Contras in Nicaragua.
We must look at how that situation could have arisen. I myself think that the obvious reason is that the Americans have no embassy in Teheran and for that reason they were not getting very good advice about whether this was likely to be a good plan. They in fact relied on the advice of two parties not well placed to give it. One was arms dealers who were used to black gun-running in and out of Iran, and the other was the state of Israel, which did at least have representation of some sort there.
The money went to Nicaragua, and it is worth following that story to the end of the line. Nicaragua has been fighting a war in which the rebels against the

629
government are supported by the United States for six or seven years. There have been 22,000 people killed. That is the Nicaraguan government figure and I suspect, having travelled there quite a lot, that it is right. Scale that up to the British population and you get a figure of 440,000 over a period of six years. That is pretty close to what we suffered in the Second World War. The economic and industrial damage inflicted on Nicaragua, when scaled up, is also pretty close to what we suffered in the Second World War. One must not be misled by the smallness of a country into underestimating the suffering which is inflicted upon it.
The question now is what to do about this arms trading business. We must do what we can because they can be used to kill, which is bad. And we must do what we can because, as my noble friend Lord Taylor pointed out, the mere travelling of arms to poorer countries than our own constitutes in itself a militarisation of those countries. We are exporting not only guns but militarisation, a militaristic way of life, prestige for the colonels, and a form of government which is not democratic, through that machinery itself.
I should say that the first thing we must do, as many noble Lords have already said, is to publish some facts for a change. What is the justification for the Government keeping up this awful prudish silence about arms exports? We ask Questions in this House and in another place, and the answer is: "Oh, we don't talk about that", as though an indecent suggestion had been made at a Victorian teatable.
I think that it is probable that public opinion wants to know more about arms exports, and I am sure that it is the duty of the Government to find out a bit more about what public opinion wants. After all, arms exports are a means of execution of foreign policy. They are a weapon of foreign policy and always have been. What is the justification for having a secret weapon of foreign policy, a very large secret weapon of foreign policy, which is in itself lethal? Let us try it on. Let us behave as though we ourselves were a democracy and hear what people think.
Let us also go into this matter of end use certificates. When we are selling arms to a dicey government which we do not really trust to use them in the way we think they ought to, the Government insist on something called an end use certificate, which means that that government promise to use them only in accordance with the purposes for which they should be used. In practice there is very little control over whether they will do so, and none at all really over whether they sell on arms to someone else.
In the case of the United States, we do not even ask for end use certificates because our friendship with the United States is such that the Government cannot conceive of any purpose that would not be a shared one between us. Nevertheless there is evidence that Blowpipes which we have sold to the United States armed forces have turned up in the hands of the Contras. When we ask questions about this, we are told, "Oh no, such matters are not discussed." We come across the prudish silence once again.
I was reminded this week—because it was used by, of all people, a Soviet television commentator—of
630
Oscar Wilde's saying that any map which does not show Utopia is not worth having. It is in that spirit that I think we—this Parliament, the parties, the press and the universities in this country—should begin to consider employing far greater resources and care than we ever have before, the present state of the "states system" in the world. The world consists of a system of sovereign states. The state of that system needs consideration. The part of that system which constitutes the arms trade deserves particularly close consideration because we are way back down the line.
We have thought about disarmament for 80 years. Thoughts about it have become sophisticated and highly developed. This is not the case with the arms trade. Hardly any thought has been given to it. The thought will have to be international. There should be international conferences which feel tentatively—we are like blind kittens in this—towards what could be a solution for mankind. It will be necessary to face the fact that there are East-West differences. Above all, there is the great difficulty inherent in the states system itself; that if I do not sell arms to other countries, some third country will. This is a difficulty, and the existence of it points to one solution and to one solution only—the real, true Utopian solution. I refer to the existence of an international convention on the arms trade.
Such a convention, one can see already, would have to be related downwards, as it were, to the domestic control of arms manufacture and sales within the member states of the convention, and it would have to look upwards and outwards, as it were, towards the disarmament process itself. One point that could be made in its favour, difficult though the task may be, is that it has at least one thing in common with the disarmament process, namely, that the verification of any agreement would be intensely difficult.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a convention but I want to begin, as I am sure the Minister will, by warmly congratulating my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, not only on giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter but also on something that has not been stressed—I refer to the tone and earnestness with which he asked his questions. I think that the Minister should not be too much on the defensive. It is not as though this Question or the speeches which have been made are attacking. I stress that word.
There is a certain puzzlement. If one looks at the words of the Question, one sees that it asks the Government,
"to reconsider their policy of supplying arms to nations which deny human rights".
We could have a long debate on the issue of making, supplying and selling arms per se, but what is bothering the House—and I think it is bothering a great many people, as it has been referred to more than once in other speeches—is the feeling, perhaps without absolute evidence, that some of the arms which are made by people in the factories of this country are being sold to nations and regimes, if not directly then indirectly, and are then used in some of the horrifying incidents that we see on our television sets.

631
I am certain that the people who work in the Enfield small arms factory will share my unease at the possibility that some of the weapons that they make, and make well, are, by dereliction on the part of the Government—I do not say deliberately—finding their way into the hands of despots and dictators. Those workers have a good reputation of which they are proud.
The Question invites the Government, if not to come clean, to come a little cleaner than they have in the past. The previous speaker, and others, made fair points. We want to know why it is not possible for us to be told, and the country to be told, a little more about this corner. We are not speaking about national security. We are referring to what the Government are commercially satisfied they are able to do.
I shall condense much of what I wanted to say and simply refer to the points made by my noble friend Lord Hatch. He invited the Minister to respond to the plea made by Amnesty International. I shall not repeat it, but it simply relates to being satisfied that we are fully aware of the publicity, and so on. I am sure the Minister's advisers will have given him something to say on that point.
I did not have much difficulty in getting a long list of countries which are virtually prohibited from receiving arms and countries which are published as being supplied with arms transfers from Britain and other countries. The bible for this is the Export of Goods (Control) Order. It contains a schedule which lists countries that shall not receive arms. I then went to another source, a government agency, and was able today to obtain a long list of countries which are supplied with arms.
I am not in the business of trying to score points. I understand not the Minister's difficulty but the difficulty in a shifting situation of always matching what it is one wants to do or believes should be done when there are changes either in control, policy or action. My attitude tonight is not to accuse—with a capital "A"—the Government on a great many matters which they should answer for. However, when one considers the behaviour of some governments and some regimes that we believe this country is supplying with arms—the Minister can deny it, but some of the countries have been mentioned—frankly I am certain that the Minister will be appalled to learn that in some countries there are ordinary human beings like ourselves who are being terrorised.
Illustrations have been given from all sides of the House. I do not have personal experience but I have been deeply impressed by the sincerity of all who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Although I did not agree with some of his premises and conclusions, undoubtedly the noble Lord's speech contributed to making this an earnest debate.
If the premise of this Question is right, the Minister must answer this question. Why we are selling arms to countries which the Government are satisfied from all the evidence are denying human rights? We have a responsibility to ask that question, and the Minister has a responsibility to try to assure us with his answers.
Both this House and the other place have very good records of raising issues, but the Government do not
632
have a good record of satisfying the questioners. The Minister may say that that is our style, but in none of the contributions to the debate this evening have I detected what I call a real partisan speech. They have been based on genuine, sincerely held unease at something for which collectively we may be responsible.
Reference was made to Nicaragua. Will the Minister take on board the fact that, since we have a close relationship with America (and rightly so), we cannot stand idly by if we know that America is party in Nicaragua to actions for which we believe we should rightly have received severe criticism should we have committed them? I should like to remind the Minister that as late as 27th June last year the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States of America had violated international law by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces, or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activity in and against Nicaragua.
Not only are we right to be uneasy on the grounds of association with a country whose actions have been condemned and which persists in those actions, but we are open to the accusation that we act in exactly the same way. We are supplying arms to many other countries which have régimes that are guilty of actions that we cannot condone.
I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour. I had intended to give your Lordships a number of illustrations but all the questions that are legitimate for me to ask have already been put by other noble Lords. I honestly want the Minister to be helpful to the House. We have stayed late and are entitled to fair answers to what I believe are fair questions.
11.26 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I intended to begin by staggering to my feet and protesting that I was exhausted, which indeed I am, but I think that that would be a shameful proceeding in the context of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and his tenacity when asking his Question and sitting through the debate this evening.
We in Britain enjoy a degree of individual freedom and a respect for human rights of which we are justly proud. This respect of individual freedom and for the rights of citizens against the authority of the state is an integral part of our constitutional parliamentary and legal traditions. Partly because of this and partly because it is something with which we have all grown up, we tend to regard this state of affairs as part of the natural order of things. It is therefore right and proper for us to remember that many people throughout the world live in countries in which their governments do not share this fundamental concern for human rights. I want therefore this evening to outline briefly what Her Majesty's Government, in company with other like-minded governments, are doing to promote human rights throughout the world and then go on to explain how we seek to ensure that our defence sales activities are fully compatible with that concern for human rights.
The Government of course are firmly committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and

633
fundamental freedoms and deplore all violations throughout the world, wherever they may occur. The United Kingdom plays an active role in international human rights fora, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which opened its 43rd annual session in Geneva on 2nd February and the CSCE Review Conference currently under way in Vienna. We also regularly make our views known on human rights issues when meeting Ministers or representatives of countries where such violations OMIT.
Our human rights concerns are naturally shared by our partners in the European Community. In recent years we have made an increasing number of joint démarches with them in third countries and have expressed our joint concern in common statements at the UN and in the CSCE. Foreign Ministers of the Twelve set out their principles in this field in a statement issued on 21st July 1986, a copy of which is in your Lordships' Library.
However, it is not enough merely to express concern. We must use all the powers at our disposal to try to convince other governments of the fundamental importance of these matters. It may be superficially attractive by way of a salve to our own conscience to say that we will not have any dealings with a particular government in a country where human rights are being violated. But such an approach does nothing to help the victims of oppression in that country. Indeed, I believe that such an approach is basically misguided since it ignores our fundamental duty to use all the powers of peaceful persuasion at our disposal.
But let us be clear that this involves us in dealing with people and governments of whose activities we may sometimes profoundly disapprove. Indeed, it involves us in using the whole range of our diplomatic, economic, commercial, military and cultural contacts to emphasise the importance which we attach to the observance of human rights.
Britain is uniquely well placed to do this. We are a member of the European Community, a leading member of the Commonwealth and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Britain still has a world currency and the second largest body of overseas investment after the United States. We are also a major trading nation and a major exporter of defence equipment in the world, along with the United States, the Soviet Union and France.
I make no apology for Britain's major role as an arms exporter since our activity in this field enables us to extend our diplomatic and political influence in a way which I believe is genuinely beneficial to the furtherance of human rights. It is in my view right and proper that we should be involved in helping our friends to contribute to their own security whether internal or external. Indeed, successive British governments have supported the sale of defence equipment whenever this is compatible with the United Kingdom's political, strategic and security interests. In political terms, the supply of equipment to friendly nations often backed by military advice, training and support, underlines our concern for their security and helps them to strengthen their ability to resist aggression. In economic terms, defence sales make a significant contribution to our balance of
634
payments and sustain more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Most importantly, however, the customers for our defence exports are sovereign states which are fully entitled to acquire arms to protect their independence and to exercise their right of self-defence. It would be wrong for the United Kingdom to seek to deny to other states the right which we exercise ourselves. This does not mean, however, that the Government allow arms to be exported indiscriminately. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, finds all that so funny.
As a major exporter of arms and related equipment, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that we have a special responsibility to ensure that so far as possible we do not supply arms which are likely to be used for the violation of human rights or result in an escalation of regional conflicts.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, what I find funny is this Government claiming that it was in the interests of peace and the right of sovereignty to supply arms to Argentina and training to Libya.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation from the noble Lord.
As I emphasised earlier, we authorise arms sales only where these are compatible with our political, strategic and economic interests and where these are consistent with our international obligations. We pay particular attention to whether arms exports might increase the degree of tension in an area or might be used for internal repression.
In the light of these various considerations, there are a number of countries to which we do not export arms or related equipment under any circumstances. For example, we do not sell arms to Argentina, Libya, South Africa, including Namibia, and Soviet bloc countries. I should perhaps also add that in the case of South Africa, we not only comply with the mandatory UN embargo on arms exports but we also comply with a voluntary UN Security Council Resolution 558 which prohibits the import of arms, ammunition and military vehicles from South Africa.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how on earth can the Minister reconcile the high-minded principles that he has enunciated with the fact that we were prepared to sell weapons to Argentina so long as there was a military regime in power in that country but deny them when there is a democracy in power?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may have forgotten that there has been a sea change in our relationship with Argentina, when of course they invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982.
In addition there are a large number of other countries where we permit arms sales only on a caseby-case basis after the most careful and rigorous scrutiny, taking into account both the potential for exacerbating regional tensions and the human rights situations in the countries concerned.
In the case of Iran and Iraq our defence sales policy reflects our declared impartiality in the conflict and I made our position very clear in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, yesterday afternoon. Since the

635
beginning of the conflict we have not supplied any lethal equipment to either Iran or Iraq. In 1984 that policy was tightened and refined into the present ministerial guidelines which, as I explained yesterday, prohibit the supply of any defence equipment to either side which would significantly enhance their capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. We have also restricted arms sales to Israel since June 1982 in direct response to the Israeli invasion and continuing occupation of Lebanon. We have also restricted any arms exports to Angola. In Central America we have called for arms reductions and have placed severe restraints on our sales of arms to the region in view of our support for the Contadora peace process.
There are, in addition, a large number of other countries where human rights considerations dictate that we take special care in considering applications for the export of arms. In the particular case of Chile, for example, while we are prepared to permit the export of certain items of equipment for external defence, we take particular care not to sanction the export of any equipment which we judge is likely to be used for internal repression. Similarly, in other countries where there is concern over human rights, arms exports are scrutinised on an individual case-bycase basis to ensure that such exports do not contribute to the violation of human rights in those countries.
It is, of course, inevitable that, as a major arms exporter, we have to make difficult decisions in borderline cases on whether to permit particular exports in response to legitimate demands from governments for equipment to safeguard their external defence and to maintain public order, or whether to refuse supply on the grounds that the equipment might be misused and thus contribute to a violation of human rights. Such decisions are not easy and I would not suggest that we necessarily always get the balance exactly right in every case. What I would emphasise, however, is that all proposed arms exports to overseas countries are carefully considered on an individual basis and that the human rights situation in the country concerned is one of the principal considerations in deciding whether or not to sanction any particular export.
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to some of the points that have been raised during the course of this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for example, asked me about the position with regard to Indonesia, and was particularly anxious about the supply of Hawk aircraft to that country. Our understanding is that the Hawk aircraft are not used in East Timor. Suggestions of this kind that equipment we have supplied to Indonesia has been used for internal repression have not so far as we are aware been substantiated.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his opening speech referred to the question of South Africa, and indeed was kind enough to write to me in advance of the debate giving me warning of the point that he planned to raise. I find it difficult to offer specific comment on the Armscor allegations without more detail. For example, it is not clear that the smuggling to which the noble Lord referred had in fact taken place through the United Kingdom. It might have been some other country. We believe that the arms embargo has generally been effective. Recent cases
636
involving action by HM Customs and Excise include the Coventry case in 1985, where five British subjects were found guilty of breaching customs regulations, the Berox case in 1985, and the Clement Shaw case in 1986. These were dealt with under the so-called compounding procedure.
I turn again briefly to the question of Chile, which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised at some length. I understood him to say that he had recently visited that country. We of course share the noble Lord's concern about human rights abuses in Chile. We frequently make that concern clear to the Chilean Government both bilaterally and in concert with our EC partners. On 4th December we voted in favour of a resolution at the UNGA criticising Chile's record. That will be considered again at a current session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
As regards HMS "Glamorgan", her sale to the Chilean Navy was entirely consistent with our policy. If I may say so, the noble Lord's imagination slightly ran away with him when he suggested something to the effect that that vessel could be used for bombarding the civilian population from her mooring in Valparaiso Harbour.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to the question of Turkey. On the subject of human rights in that country, I can assure your Lordships that we follow the situation carefully, paying particular attention to allegations of violations. We have raised our concern on those issues with the Turkish Government on numerous occasions. During the Turkish Prime Minister's visit to the United Kingdom last February, the Prime Minister made a particular point of raising human rights. Mr. Ozal, who came to power only in December 1983 and who cannot be held responsible for events before then, showed himself to be well aware of the importance of making further progress. In our view he is genuinely seeking to improve the situation which he inherited. Moreover, the current position needs to be seen against the background of anarchy—with over 3,000 people killed and over 30,000 people injured—that existed in Turkey in 1980 when the military took over.
I should like to turn briefly to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, about the position in Morocco. As the noble Earl will appreciate I cannot comment on any specific arms sales, but I should emphasise that all arms exports to Morocco are examined on an individual basis. The human rights situation in that country and the war in the Western Sahara are two of the factors which are taken into account in deciding whether to sanction any particular export. However, as the noble Earl recognised, British arms exports to Morocco are very limited and we are by no means a major arms supplier to that country.
Some of your Lordships will no doubt continue to disagree as to the wisdom of certain decisions in relation to arms exports to particular countries. Nevertheless, I hope that I have said sufficient tonight to convince your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government attach very great importance to the question of human rights and that in administering our defence sales policy we take full account of the right and proper concern for human rights which has been so eloquently expressed in your Lordships' House tonight.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered the specific question which I asked him. How does he explain the action of the British Government on 22nd November at the World Bank when they voted in favour of a loan to the Pinochet regime when even the United States abstained on that vote?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to table a Question on that matter, I or another Minister will be happy to answer it.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before midnight.

  NUCLEAR POWER STATION STATISTICS
  NUCLEAR POWER STATION STATISTICS
  AGRICULTURAL LAND: ALTERNATIVE USES
  AGRICULTURAL LAND: ALTERNATIVE USES
  SHIPBUILDING IN JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA: STATE AID
  SHIPBUILDING IN JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA: STATE AID
  AIDS
  AIDS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984: RENEWAL
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984: RENEWAL