Sitting of 11 February 1987

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

  PORT OF FOSDYKE BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  GRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Prison Accommodation
    Mr. Hugh Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cell accommodation in Scottish prisons; how many are currently out of use; for what reasons; and when he expects additional cells to come into use.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The total design capacity of accommodation in Scottish penal establishments is 5,398 places. Of these, 395 cells are currently out of use as a result of damage in recent incidents. Four hundred and sixty eight additional places will become available when phase 2 of Shotts prison is brought into use this year.
    Mr. Brown: During the recent disturbance in Barlinnie the Secretary of State repeatedly stated that overcrowding was not a problem. When is the inspector's report on Peterhead expected? Will the Secretary of State comment on the leaked report by the prison working group? Everybody in Scotland seems to know about that report except us. What proposals does he have in mind to reduce the prison population rather than to reshuffle places and prisoners?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has raised many points. My comments on overcrowding related to B hall of Barlinnie, where the incident took place, and indeed to Peterhead. In neither case has there been overcrowding. I have said that I shall consider publishing the working party's report when its draft report is finally determined. It might be a useful contribution to public debate on this matter.
    The hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the most important aspects of the prison population concerns those
    294
    in prison for non-payment of fines. He will be aware of the appointment of fine enforcement officers. Early signs are that those appointments are at least helping to reduce the number of people admitted to prison for that reason. Clearly, we shall be willing to give further consideration to ideas that might produce further progress.
    Mr. Henderson: How much have the Government expended in capital expenditure in Scottish prisons in recent years? How does it compare with the record of the previous Government to improve accommodation in Scottish prisons?
    Mr. Rifkind: The standard figure is approximately £40 million since 1979. Indeed, the opening of the new phase of Shotts prison will provide a substantial improvement in the quality of the infrastructure for those incarcerated within prisons. We attach importance to a proper prison programme to ensure that the standard of facilities in Scottish prisons is commensurate with what modern circumstances suggest is appropriate.
    Mr. O'Neill: Although the, Secretary of State and the Opposition may disagree on what is meant by overcrowding, he will surely accept that too many people are in Scottish prisons and that not all of them are in prison because they have not paid fines. Is it not depressing that the best that the Scottish prisons group can come up with is some reshuffling of numbers? It should look at finding better ways of treating prisoners by means of halfway houses and more imaginative sentencing policies, and that is the Secretary of State's responsibility.
    Mr. Rifkind: I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the question of who gets sent to prison is a matter not for the working group or, indeed, for the Government, but for the courts to determine when convicted individuals are sentenced. Therefore, penal policy relates to other issues.
    The working party is looking at alternative systems for certain kinds of prisoners. I am anxious, beyond that aspect, to look at other ways of ensuring that, at the end of the day, prisons are used only for those for whom there is no appropriate alternative form of punishment. There is common ground on that matter. Translating that into specific policy decisions is inevitably more difficult, but we are open to proposals that might be forthcoming on this matter. At the end of the day, what is done with any individual convicted person is a matter for the courts and not for anyone else.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent disruption in prisons and the consequent damage to prison buildings have merely compounded the overcrowding problem in certain prisons? At the same time, will he place on record his admiraton for the work of officer John Kearney, one of my constituents, who was held hostage for over 100 hours? Finally, with a view to dealing with any possible future disruption, will my right hon. and learned Friend invite the media to ensure that, in future, demonstrations are not covered by television, newspaper and radio people, because that has the unfortunate habit of encouraging demonstrations to continue for longer.
    Mr. Rifkind: When the new phase 2 of Shotts prison is open, the total capacity of the Scottish prison system will be slightly greater than the total number of individual prisoners. However, there may still be a mismatch in individual establishments. We are considering ways of

    295
    ensuring that the establishments that are available are properly utilised so that there is not under-utilisation of capacity in one establishment and overcrowding in another. As for the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I do indeed pay tribute to the courage of all prison officers, who are constantly required to undertake very difficult and serious responsibilities that are often not perceived by the general public. The role that the media might play in covering incidents in prisons is a separate issue, but I know that all who are interested in the public interest will wish to ensure that nothing is done to inflame or aggravate any delicate situation, particularly when the physical safety of individual prison officers may be affected.
    Mr. Clarke: Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman ignore the fact that under this Government the crime rate has risen by 80 per cent. in Scotland since 1979? Why has he failed to address himself today to the problem of prisoners on remand? Is he not worried about untried prisoners? Is he not worried that those who have been found guilty of nothing are being put into overcrowded cells? Does he accept that since Scotland sends to prison four times as many people as do most other European countries, the problem calls for resources? Above all, will he respond to the low morale among the personnel in Scottish prisons by holding an urgent public inquiry?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question illustrates a certain degree of confusion. Those who have been found not guilty are not incarcerated in prison. The remand prisoners to whom the hon. Gentleman referred are those who have been charged with crimes and who are awaiting trial, but to whom the courts have concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant bail. I accept that those who have not yet been convicted of an offence but who are detained in prison awaiting trial are in a different category and that we must ensure that they are given proper care and consideration. I should also emphasise that under the Scottish system those who are awaiting trial do not have to suffer a period of detention before trial of the kind that one finds in many other countries.

    Travel-to-Work Areas
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the assisted area status of the Blairgowrie Pitlochry Aberfeldy travel-towork area.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it is to be accepted, regional policy must be seen to be fair and sensible? Does my hon. Friend think that it is sensible to describe Aberfeldy, Pitlochry and Blairgowrie as a travel-to-work area when it is neither viable nor sensible to travel on those roads in the winter every day? It cannot be done. Since male unemployment in Blairgowrie has been around and over 20 per cent. since 1978, which is higher than the unemployment in Dundee, will my hon. Friend tell me why that can be said to be fair? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend campaigns on this matter with commendable persistence. I am sure he will be aware that a number of possible arrangements were considered
    296
    when the travel-to-work areas were established. As the system is only two years old, I think he will accept that there is a need for a period of stability before undertaking changes to the system.

    Western Isles
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress on an extension of the integrated development programme in the Western Isles.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The European Commission considers that there is no need for a full-scale extension of the integrated development programme. We have asked the Commission to consider how best to wind up the IDP in order to protect the significant achievements made. We await the Commission's response.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that when the programme was inaugurated there were suggestions that there would be a follow-on extension? A number of the projects that have shown excellent results might be in danger if that extension is not arranged. Will he put pressure on the EEC to bring matters to a head as quickly as possible?
    Mr. MacKay: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. The ball is in the Commission's court, and I have recently written to remind it of that fact. We shall have to wait to see what proposals it makes, but that must he before May 1987 in order that any proposals can be rolled over from the current integrated development programme.

    AIDS
    Mrs. McCurleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to ensure that all necessary provisions have been made to assist the Scottish medical profession in its assessment and containment of AIDS.
    Mr. Rifkind: In addition to the issue of extensive guidance to doctors, dentists and nurses about the disease, the Government have to date allocated £1·4 million centrally to fund measures to control the spread of AIDS in Scotland.
    Mrs. McCurley: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that reply and on the excellent booklet that has been produced for educational establishments in Scotland to be used mainly by teachers? Is it possible that in the future a similar booklet may be produced for young people within these establishments to be distributed and discussed within those establishments?
    Mr. Rifkind: The guidance booklet that we issued last week essentially dealt with the need for a range of sensible, hygienic precautions in schools to stop AIDS being passed on accidentally. My colleagues and I will be issuing in a few weeks time a question and answer leaflet on AIDS for teachers to use in response to children's questions. Schools have a positive role to play in that respect, and we have asked bodies such as the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum and the Scottish Health Education Group to consider what further guidance and materials should be provided.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of the University Grants Committee's reductions at Aberdeen university, the department of microbiology is to lose clinical and teaching staff and that, combined with the difficulties in the Grampian health board, laboratory staff will be seriously reduced, with repercussions not only for the AIDS programme but for research into meningitis? How does the Secretary of State justify that?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I have no departmental responsibility for the University Grants Committee, therefore I shall confine myself to the specific point about research on AIDS in Scotland. The Scottish Office is providing just under £250,000 for research on AIDS in Scotland. Other research proposals have been put forward to the Government, which will be considered in due course.
    Mr. Wilson: With regard to the need to contain AIDS, will the Secretary of State explain why it has taken so long to inaugurate the proposed needle exchange system? Is it the case that it is not due to come into effect until April, and thus about three to four months will elapse, with the danger of AIDS being spread by contaminated needles continuing?
    Mr. Rifkind: On 18 December we announced our intention to set up small-scale trials under medical supervision, including the counselling of drug misusers and the exchange of clean for used equipment on a onefor-one basis. That requires close co-operation with the medical profession and others in the three likely localities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. That cannot be arranged overnight. We are equally anxious to ensure that the trials begin at the earliest possible date. It seems likely that April will be the commencement date, but that will depend on the conclusion of the detailed discussions with the medical profession and others who will be involved in the trials.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Young Tories in Scotland have called for brothels to be taken into public ownership to curb the spread of AIDS and improve health standards. Will the Secretary of State accept that nationalisation is of more benefit to the community than privatisation?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have no early intention of taking brothels or any other comparable establishments into public ownership. I recall that it was once remarked that Socialists disapprove of sin because it is a form of private enterprise.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I hope the Secretary of State will bear in mind, when considering the pilot projects on free exchange of needles, the case that can be made for needles to be issued free to diabetics. May I use that as an example of the need for an advisory committee at central level to co-ordinate some of these difficult questions? I accept that the Government will have to confront everything, including troops returning from the Horn of Africa, and the difficulties that they create locally, when they return. I was questioned in my own constituency about when the Minister asked me whether I thought he should advise people who were proposing to get married in church to take AIDS tests beforehand. Does he accept that these questions need some strategic overall view by a central advisory committee?
    Mr. Rifkind: We must try to ensure that we respond to this serious problem in a serious and responsible fashion. Some somewhat exotic suggestions about how the problem can be dealt with have often been made, but we are trying to identify ways in which the Government and the community can make a meaningful contribution to reducing the incidence of this serious disease.
    The existing arrangements for diabetics provide for prescription of reusable syringes by general practitioners under the National Health Service. Although diabetics might find it more convenient to use disposable syringes, it would be difficult to justify the substantial additional cost to the NHS of general provision of disposable needles for all insulin using diabetics.
    As for drug users, we are at the moment talking only about certain trial tests. We shall have to wait to see the outcome of those tests before deciding what general policy might be appropriate.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable anger among diabetics in Scotland as a result of that answer? May we have an assurance that none of the money that is being used for the advertising campaign on AIDS will come from the Scottish health education group's budget and thus damage its excellent work? May we also be assured that the increased number of hospital places and the doctors and nursing staff required to deal with AIDS as its incidence increases will be paid for by extra money from the Government and not represent a burden on the health boards?
    Mr. Rifkind: From the hon. Gentleman's original comment, one would have thought that there were no diabetics before 1979. He should be reminded that the Labour Government saw no need to provide free syringes to diabetics, so it is somewhat hypocritical for him to suggest that there has been a fundamental change.
    The money that we give for research projects on AIDS is in addition to a further £250,000 to assist the publicity campaign by the Scottish Health Education Group. We have also appointed a working group under the general manager of Lothian health board to advise on methods of caring for those who might be found to suffer from AIDS. I understand that that working group is to report fairly soon.

    Education Classes (North of Scotland)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what support he intends to give to maintain the provision of extra-mural studies and adult education classes in the north of Scotland.
    Mr. John MacKay: Education authorities are responsible for the provision of education in their areas. In addition, the Scottish Education Department gives grant to a number of voluntary organisations active in community education.
    Mr. Wallace: I trust that the Minister does not need any lessons about how valuable is the provision of extra-mural classes, especially in rural parts of Scotland and the islands. Those who administer the system— certainly those in the north of Scotland—feel that withdrawal of the administration grant by the Scottish Office poses a threat to the continuation of those classes. As the Minister has accepted in correspondence with me that a very small amount of money is involved, why are the Government being so mean in withdrawing it?
    Mr. MacKay: It is indeed a small amount when compared with university budgets, but the total of £53,000 for the whole of Scotland is significant when compared with the alternative priority on which we think the money should be spent— getting a Scottish version of the PICKUP scheme off the ground to give people in mid career the advantage of retraining in new skills.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Miniser agree that the PICKUP scheme in Engand and Wales has been funded by additional money, whereas in Scotland the money is coming from the same budget? Why will he not do the same as England and ensure that we get extra money for this valuable scheme?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman must recall from his time in government that one has to order priorities in some way. When we considered the PICKUP scheme and studied the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Committee's report, which said that limited pump priming finance by Government could provide an important stimulus, we decided that it was right to do that and to find the money to enable us to fund a limited project.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that the two projects address themselves to different markets and that it is wrong to take away funding for a service that affects small communities throughout the north-east and the north of Scotland and the islands in favour of a scheme that will simply not make the same provision for those people? Will he recognise that, for the small amount of money involved, he is causing grave hardship and indeed outrage among rural communities?
    Mr. MacKay: I do not believe for a moment that I am causing hardship or outrage, other than in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. It is fair to point out that my Department pays grant-aid amounting to about £423,000 for the administrative costs of national voluntary organisations that provide educational activities, including encouraging adult participation, in the north of Scotland.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister not agree that these problems in the north of Scotland and elsewhere suggest that the Government place a low priority on adult education? Does that not therefore re-emphasise the need for proper funding for the Workers Educational Association? Will the Minister bear that in mind when I meet him to discuss the matter tomorrow morning?
    Mr. MacKay: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall think about nothing other than the Workers Educational Association and his visit between now and tomorrow morning, but it is fair to say, as I shall point out to him, that the grant to the WEA in 1986–87 came to £184,500, which is a significant amount of money.

    Forestry Commission (Planting Policy)
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that the Forestry Commission acts upon the conclusions of the National Audit Office regarding the marginal cost-effectiveness of planting conifers on high ground in the north of Scotland, by switching its emphasis to broadleaf plantings in agricultural land further south; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John MacKay: The National Audit Office review of Forestry Commission objectives and achievements is
    300
    being considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which will report to Parliament in due course. My right hon. and learned Friend is therefore not at present in a position to make any detailed statement.
    Mr. Taylor: I note that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that it is, in any event, a virtue to plant woodlands on less productive farmland, or even to develop golf courses there? Would that not lend a new meaning to green keeping? Does that not help to sustain the rural character of that land and a habitat for wildlife?
    Mr. MacKay: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that against the background of surplus agricultural production we look at all the means of maintaining economic activity and rural life in our countryside. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had in mind when he made his statement on Monday in the House.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the initiative taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this week to help promote the rural economy is extremely good news? Does he accept that if we are to increase broadleaved planting, as opposed to conifers, there must be an extra incentive but, at the same time, does he also accept that if we are to encourage tourism in Scotland we must be careful about blanket coniferous planting throughout the scenic areas?
    Mr. MacKay: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our policy. He will recall that the policy statement that we made as far back as July 1985, which introduced the broadleaved woodland grant scheme, was widely welcomed, and the Forestry Commission tells me that the scheme has got off to an encouraging start. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which everyone who is interested in the countryside and in the forestry industry fully appreciates, that we need to look at both conifers and broadleaved trees as the way forward for the forestry industry and the countryside.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that the decision by Caledonian Papers to build a paper mill in Irvine in my constituency, which is an inward investment of £250 million and will involve up to 1,500 jobs during the construction period, and 900 permanent jobs, depends on adequate supplies of timber from the public and private sectors in Scotland? Will the Minister give encouragement to the Forestry Commission to extend its activities in the highlands and southern uplands of Scotland to ensure the continuation of those timber supplies in the future?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman shows a realistic appreciation of the importance of forestry for Scotland. I only wish that it was shared by a few other Labour Members. I add to the hon. Gentleman's valid point about the importance of this development in job terms. The plant at Irvine will require sitka spruce, which is often a species much maligned by the environmental conservation lobby. That is the species that the industry wants. It is because of that species that the company is coming to Scotland and to Irvine.
    Mr. Pollock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he recently visited the plant of Highland Forest Products near Inverness? Does he agree that that is a welcome addition, in a modern framework, to the forestry enterprise,

    301
    substantially relying as it does on locally grown products and bringing a welcome infusion of new jobs to the area'? In short, is that not the sort of development in rural areas that we wish to encourage, and will the Scottish Office do precisely that?
    Mr. MacKay: I am happy to respond positively to my hon. Friend, just as I did to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). Highland Forest Products has a factory employing about 100 people in the plant and about 300 to 400 people throughout the countryside in the north-east of Scotland. Once again, the plant requires pine trees, the coniferous trees that some of the critics rail against so much. Again, that underlines the point that we need these trees if we are to have a proper forest industry.
    Mr. Hardy: Given the enormous dependency on imported timber products and the hugh cereal surpluses that the Government will fail to tackle by their recently announced policy, is it not desirable to transfer some of the rich grade 1 and grade 2 low level arable areas in England to forestry purposes to meet the need—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about Scotland.
    Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: This question is about Scotland.
    Mr. Hardy: No, forestry.
    Mr. Speaker: No, it is about Scotland.
    Mr. Corrie: I support what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has said. Could not many areas in Scotland be planted with coniferous trees without spoiling the environment? I support any move to put in hardwood trees, but if land is set aside for such trees, should not agriculture have some compensation for the output of that land?
    Mr. MacKay: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has a major constituency interest in the plant at Irvine. I also agree about the need for a balance between broadleaf and conifer. It is important that farmers take advantage of the scheme announced on Monday to plant conifers and deciduous trees in land, which, up to now, has not been considered for tree planting.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the changes announced this week by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England will not prejudice the Scottish Office's lead on forestry'? Will he also give us an assurance that the Forestry Commission will play an integral part in the expansion of forestry and that the Government's plans to privatise have been shelved for ever?
    Mr. MacKay: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office will continue to play the lead role in forestry. The Forestry Commission has an important role to play. It will be called upon to administer the farm forestry scheme, as it does the scheme on private planting, and its important role in the forestry industry has greatly helped projects such as Kaukas and Highland Forest Products get off the ground in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the announcement made earlier this week, which will help ordinary farmers, as opposed to pop stars, to plant woodlands. Will he confirm that the cost to public funds
    302
    of the 40 jobs created by Fountain Forestry in the flow country is in excess of £300,000 per job? Is this a useful way to use public money, especially when more jobs could be created elsewhere from the same resources?
    Mr. MacKay: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to put down a specific question before I can answer about the exact figure that he mentions. I believe that there is room for both forestry and the open land for which many of the environmentalists and conservationists ask. The committee that we have set up in the Scottish Office to look into the interaction between wildlife and planting in the north of Scotland will help us to find a reasonable solution that will be in the interest of the countryside in that part of Scotland.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that one of the many clangers dropped by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came when he said:
    "The growing of trees under these proposals will be much more attractive to people in the marginal areas".—[Official Report, 9 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 72.]
    This must point to more blanket afforestation in the Highlands. If the Minister hopes to curtail the surplus agricultural produce and protect the rural environment, will he take this opportunity to explain how he expects the Forestry Commission or the private sector to achieve an appropriate increase in tree planting on the low ground?
    Mr. MacKay: One of the ways in which that can be achieved is to act on the decision that was announced a few months ago that we would take a more relaxed view to planting on land further down the hill. That view has been made perfectly clear to the forestry industry.
    Mr. Home Robertson: That is not economic.
    Mr. MacKay: I do not agree with the comments made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Both large-scale forestry— I prefer to use that phrase rather than blanket-forestry—and farm forestry have an important role to play. I would have preferred to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he supported the development of the forestry industry and the jobs that are coming to Scotland as a result.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hundreds of square miles of forestry in my constituency contribute handsomely to the local economy? Does he further agree that it is important that a balance is retained between the needs of tourism and forestry and that that balance has been substantially retained in many areas? Does he accept that the welcome given by the vice-president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to the Government's proposals show that we are moving along the right lines?
    Mr. MacKay: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that the National Farmers Union of Scotland has made a positive response to the statement made by my right hon. Friend last Monday. The Scottish Farmers Union has warmly welcomed the statement, and Opposition Members would be well advised to heed its words. My hon. Friend is equally correct when he said that we have to strike a sensible balance between planting and the needs of conservation interests and the needs of tourism. That can be achieved, and in many parts of Scotland, including the area that I represent, that has been achieved.

    Severe Weather (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional financial help he intends to give local authorities as a consequence of extra expenditure incurred during the exceptional cold snap in January.
    The Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Rate support grant is paid in aid of local authority services generally. The grant paid to authorities this year, and promised for next, is generous. Prudent authorities make provision for contingencies such as bad winter weather, and in the case of road maintenance the incidence of snow is specifically taken into account, on an authority-by-authority basis, in assessing expenditure need. I therefore see no reason for any special arrangements in this case.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that that is a dusty and unsatisfactory answer? He must be aware that because of the cold snap local authorities incurred additional expenditure in their roads, social works and housing departments because of burst pipes. Is he further aware that yesterday the Department of Energy said that there were 15,000 extra calls on the Monergy hot line as a consequence of the cold snap? Is the Minister really saying to local authorities "You're getting nowt" bearing in mind that the winter has only just started?
    Mr. Ancram: I want to take this opportunity first to congratulate local authorities and their workers on the great efforts that they have made to keep our roads clear. Although the severe weather did not last long, it made life difficult for a time and the authorities responded quickly and efficiently. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point, I must tell him that snowfall and snow lying are not new occurrences this year. That has happened during many winters in Scotland. The figures for 1982–83, 1983–84 and 1984–85 reveal that in Lothian the average number of days when snow was lying were 13·2, 22·2, and 19·8 respectively. That is not a new occurrence and authorities are well able to deal with it. With regard to social work, my right hon. and learned Friend made provision of more than £300 million for social work in 1986–87. There is ample room for sensible management for unexpected costs within that total.
    Mr. McQuarrie: While I agree with my hon. Friend that rate support grant was a little more generous this year, especially in Grampian and Banff and Buchan, will he accept that there are cold snaps and cold snaps, and that in the north-east of Scotland in my constituency we had a very severe cold snap this winter? We certainly require some additional assistance towards the problems that have been created, because the local authority direct labour department was called out on many occasions in excess of the normal procedure.
    Mr. Ancram: I note my hon. Friend's comments and I appreciate the reasons why he has made them. However, in the time that I have held my present responsibilities, this is not the first time that Grampian has suffered from cold weather during the winter. It is for that reason that the client group assessments in their secondary indicators make provision on a historical basis for road maintenance in particular, which is the expenditure most affected by cold weather.
    Mr. Martin: Does the Minister agree that cold snaps not only make life difficult for people but cause severe
    304
    danger, especially to the elderly? Does he know that in my constituency two people died during the cold snap and many elderly people could not get out of their houses, because my constituency covers one of the highest points in the city? Should not more assistance be given to the social work department and the roads department to make conditions safer, especially for the elderly?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman referred spcifically to elderly people. The Government have shown their willingness to respond flexibly to the needs of the elderly and other vulnerable groups with the £5 weekly allowance. In Scotland more than 82,000 claimants have already received two payments, with 32,000 cases still in the pipeline, which is a much higher figure than some of our critics suggested. It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to suggest that cold weather was invented by this Government. It is worth remembering that under the Labour Government expenditure on heating additions amounted to only £90 million, as opposed to more than £400 million under this Government.

    Prosperity
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the relative prosperity of Scotland compared with the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. Lang: The standard of living of most Scots compares favourably with most of the rest of Great Britain. In terms of average male weekly earnings, the latest figures for 1985 show that only the south-east fared better.
    Mr. Henderson: Does this not show that a Conservative Government are good for the Scots, especially since, under this Government, those who depend upon health, social and other vital services such as education receive more per head of the population in Scotland than they do south of the border?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right as regards identifiable public expenditure. He may also wish to know that in terms of gross domestic product per head and personal disposable income, Scotland lies third in the list of regions in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since the new year statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the potential boom in Scotland the Caterpillar tractor company has decided to draw stumps and close the factory en bloc. Since then there have been further redundancies in my constituency. Is it not about time that we had a statement from the Minister or from the Secretary of State as to the Government's intentions in respect of Caterpillar?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend's views about Caterpillar are well know. However, I am glad to say that what happened with Caterpillar does not reflect the general view of overseas companies with regard to investment in Scotland. During the past seven years about £1·8 billion of inward investment has been attracted to Scotland.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that last year identifiable public expenditure per head was 27 per cent. higher in Scotland than it was in England and that housing

    305
    expenditure per head was about 90 per cent. higher? Is it not time that this tartan featherbedding was subject to an independent audit?
    Mr. Lang: Identifiable public expenditure has been higher in Scotland in several areas, reflecting the special needs of Scotland which my hon. Friend, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, would wish to support.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that in the 1960s we were worried that Scotland had too large a share of the old and declining industries and not enough of the new dynamic industries, but that under the Conservative Government there has been a huge diminution in the older established industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding and not enough growth, even with all the advantages of North sea oil, in the new dynamic industries? There is also an absence in Scotland of decision-making headquarters of companies. Does the Minister concede that a regional policy which suits the south-east of England does not necessarily suit Scotland, which should have a more independent view of its economic future?
    Mr. Lang: I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of people self-employed in Scotland has increased by about a quarter during the past seven years. Although there has been a loss of jobs in manufacturing industry, it is significant that output has been almost hack at the 1979 levels, with many fewer workers, thus reflecting the dramatic increase in productivity, which is the best guarantee of secure jobs in the future.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement of a multi-million pound investment at Mearns Cross in my constituency? Is he further aware that that follows a major investment announced by English Sewing in manufacturing industry at Neilston and Newton Mearns in my constituency? Do not those practical examples give the lie to the nonsense talked by Opposition Members about the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The quality of the Scottish work force and the other attractions of locating in Scotland are manifest and are reflected in the number of companies coming to Scotland.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister realise that Scottish Unionists will not be voting for Conservative candidates at the next election, not simply because they supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but because Scottish Ministers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member from going wide of the question. Will he relate his question to Scottish prosperity?
    Mr. Taylor: It is very much related to the Scottish economy. I am giving the second reason why Scottish Unionists will not be voting. It is because Scottish Ministers have clearly put London policies before the interests of the Scots.
    Mr. Lang: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in this United Kingdom Parliament, would pay tribute to the very generous help that has gone to Northern Ireland from the British Government.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Bearing in mind that Scotland has more Members of Parliament per head than England, does my hon. Friend believe that this public expenditure results in more, or less, prosperity for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I shall answer my hon. Friend by pointing out that productivity on the Government side of the House is very much greater than on the Opposition side.
    Dr. Godman: Many people in my constituency are emphatically denied a share in this so-called prosperity. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland now respond to the request that I made to him some three weeks ago for a feasibility study into potential projects in the lower Clyde area to be conducted by, say, Planning Industrial Economic Development Advisers or some other such consultancy firm? Such a study is desperately needed.
    Mr. Lang: I certainly recognise the special difficulties in the Inverclyde area. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Inverclyde initiative is giving close attention to this. My right hon. and learned Friend is also considering what further measures may be brought to bear in that area.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us who live in the midlands look north with envy to Scotland, in appreciating the levels of income, as he has mentioned, and of public expenditure? Will my hon. Friend tell us the secret of his success?
    Mr. Lang: I would advise my hon. Friend to return to Scotland, where he will find that average earnings are up threefold over the past 10 years and the gross domestic product has doubled since 1977.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister note that on the Opposition side, at least, we do not regard the news of a shopping development in Newton Mearns as the yardstick against which we ought to measure national success? Can he perhaps comment on his extraordinary boast that after eight years of Conservative success he can only say that we have almost got industrial investment back to 1979 levels?
    May I suggest to the assorted comics on the Government Benches who have taken part in this interlude that we have in Scotland some 360,000 people in the dole queues and that we were alone in the United Kingdom last month in seeing our seasonally adjusted unemployment figures rise? If we want a constructive debate, will the Minister say what he is doing to support the stand by the Caterpillar work force, who do not want to add to the total of 192,000 manufacturing jobs lost under this Government? Will he recognise that we expect positive steps to be taken to find another operator or, as a last resort, to provide jobs in the plant for the work force, and that a generalised statement of good intentions or of a feeling of outrage is no substitute for specific and effective action?
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman has read the statement that I made yesterday, he will be well aware of the Government's continuing commitment to finding alternative employment for the work force at the Caterpillar plant. As regards manufacturing jobs, if he had listened to the answer that I gave earlier he would have realised that the point I was making was not so much about output as about productivity. The very demonstration of the increased productivity that has resulted over the past few years is the best guarantee of continuing employment provision in Scotland.

    Agricultural Production
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to sustain the rural economy in the light of policies aimed at reducing agricultural production.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government are committed to maintaining a healthy rural economy in Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a number of measures to the House on Monday 9 February.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in acknowledging the welcome given by the Scottish National Farmers Union to the proposals announced this week, also take time to read my article in the Glasgow Herald, if he can find it in the Library, from which place somebody seems to have nicked it? That article proposes that we should be given special grants in Scotland to save the steadlings and farm buildings and set up a rural population to sustain a rural economy.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is a source of many new ideas that could be of value in dealing with the problem. We are prepared to consider constructively any proposals for the diversification of the rural economy in order to ensure that the income base for the farming community and for the rural community is as broad as possible.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is it not the case that in Scotland, as in England, no additional expenditure is to be incurred on these rural initiatives?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, one of the Government's objectives is to reduce the structural surpluses in the European Community. That itself would lead to savings on current expenditure. The proposal announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture would indeed involve substantial expenditure of a kind that he himself described to the House.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Procurator Fiscal Service
    Mr. Pollockasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any plans to review the resources available to the procurator fiscal service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): The resources of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service have recently been reviewed and, subject to parliamentary approval, the 1986–87 cash limit for Class XX, Vote 20 will be increased by £180,000. Class XX, Vote 21 provision will be increased by £150,000.
    Mr. Pollock: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. In view of the current pressures on the procurator fiscal's office in Glasgow, why was it necessary for the procurator fiscal to be involved in the obtaining of a search warrant recently for the BBC offices in Glasgow?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It was in accordance with both proper and accepted practice and procedure in Scotland in such circumstances for the police to make a request to the procurator fiscal to make application on their behalf to the sheriff. In deciding whether it was
    308
    proper to present such an application, the procurator fiscal had to be satisfied as to the legal justification for the application. In that regard he would consider the information to be sworn to by the police and the known attitude of the BBC to the requirement of due legal process. He sought to ensure that the warrant was sufficient to meet its purpose and did not go beyond what was required. With his legal experience, I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that the course followed there and the relationship between the police and the procurator fiscal were appropriate in the circumstances.
    Mr. Dalyell: Was Professor Bradley right, or wrong, in suggesting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] If he is wrong, let it be said where he is wrong. Was he right, or wrong, in suggesting that the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate, in the mode and style of their investigation, had to take into account the interests and the feelings of the victim? In this case was not the major victim the Foreign Office? When did the Crown Office first approach or talk to the Foreign Office, or when did the Foreign Office first approach or talk to the Crown Office?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: To answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first, in no circumstances and at no time did the Crown Office contact the Foreign Office, nor indeed was there any pressure or approach from the Foreign Office to the Crown Office. Although I studied under Professor Bradley, I regret to say that I do not consider that his statement of the law, as I saw it reported in The Independent today, is wholly correct. I would not dissent in any way from what he has to say with regard to consideration of the public interest where there is—
    Mr. Dalyell: Is he wrong?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman would give me half a moment I shall try to answer his question. I do not dissent from what Professor Bradley has to say about the consideration of the public interest once a stage of consideration of prosecution is reached. However, I do not agree, nor would my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate agree, that it would be his practice to consult any other Minister when considering applications for search warrants in the course of a criminal investigation.
    Sir Alex Fletcher: In considering the resources in Glasgow, is my hon. and learned Friend still satisfied that the attitude of the BBC at the highest level was such that the police had no alternative but to obtain a search warrant and raid the Glasgow premises? Can he assure the House that every reasonable possibility was covered by the police before this drastic action was taken?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The BBC was perfectly within its legal rights in insisting that if any action was to be taken against it in relation to material that it held, due legal process should be carried through. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), one of the known factors at the time when the application was considered by the procurator fiscal was that at a senior level the BBC took the view that if those investigating this matter wanted material from the BBC, it was for them to follow due legal process. The BBC had a right to insist on that and, clearly if it did insist, that excluded the possibility of such material being handed

    309
    over to the investigating authorities without the necessity for a search warrant, as is sometimes the case in some circumstances.
    Mr. Wallace: It has been said on a number of occasions by some people that the showing of the Zircon film last week in Edinburgh and Glasgow could put those who saw it in breach of the Official Secrets Act. Does the Solicitor-General think that the procurator fiscal's office has sufficient resources to deal with such a vast number of cases? Given that the Government and the Leader of the Opposition think that it endangers national security, why did the Government not seek to take out an interim interdict against the showing of these films?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, following the New Statesman article, information was already in the public domain, as it were, and the prospects of obtaining an interim interdict or an interdict in perpetuity in Scotland were thereby limited. I am certainly not answerable for the views of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am even loss answerable for the disagreements that have opened between him and his Back Benchers.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that sufficient resources are available to the procurator fiscal? If they are riot, will he look at those resources and recruit people of the highest calibre so that we may have the best possible people prosecuting when we want to bring prosecutions in cases such as the BBC case? That will ensure that we can make the charges stick.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall resist the temptation to make any observations about the last point made by my hon. Friend. I know that he has a continuing interest in the affairs of the procurator fiscal service. I am encouraged by the fact that there is some agreement to increase the Vote, and I hope that the House will approve the Vote. I share my hon. Friend's view that, through the procurator fiscal service in Scotland, we probably enjoy the finest prosecution system in the world.
    Mr. Dewar: I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree that he was aware that a warrant was in existence in England at the time when he considered the Scottish process. Did he think about restricting and narrowing the scope of the warrant in Scotland, in the way that it was done in England? Does he agree that that might well have stopped some of the controversy and damage that has flowed from this lamentable incident?
    We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland was informed on the day on which the warrant was obtained. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that was Friday 30 January, and can he say when on that day the Secretary of State was advised by his office? Will he again categorically confirm, because I want to be absolutely clear beyond all doubt, that there was no consultation at any time about the application, the drawing or the exercise of the warrant, with any of his ministerial colleagues outside the Law Officers?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall start by answering the hon. Gentleman's last point. I confirm yet
    310
    again that in the drawing up of the petition and the warrant, in considering whether such an application should be made to the sheriff and in arranging for its execution there was no pressure and nothing was done in relation to any other Ministers, least of all, as the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends seem to think, with No. 10 Downing street or with any other office.
    I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. With respect, it seems to me that this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer. I shall now deal with the major part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Of course there was an awareness that a warrant had been obtained in England. It was obtained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate that such a warrant would not have any validity in Scotland. I wish that he would go back to the letter that I sent him and read it rather more carefully, together with the petition and the crave attached to it. Had the hon. Gentleman looked at it, he would have realised that it referred explicitly to highly classified information. If he had read as far as the first paragraph of the petition, he would know that it referred to highly classified information contained in the article in the New Statesman.

    North and South Courts (Glasgow)
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland on how many days the north and south courts in Glasgow were used for High Court prosecutions in 1956, 1966, 1976 and 1986; and if he will estimate trends over the next 10 years.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The figures are 55, 143, 250 and 425 days respectively. In addition, in 1986 the High Court sat in other courts in Glasgow on 190 days. It is not practicable to make detailed estimates of trends over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Fairbairn: In view of the escalating figures that my hon. and learned Friend has given to the House, does he recall that when we have both been prosecuting or defending major cases in the High Court in Glasgow, we sometimes had to be unnecessarily close to one another? Will he use his influence with the Secretary of State, who may have a more distant recollection of those matters, and suggest that if we go for option 1 for the High Court we would foreclose the possibility of enlarging those courts, and persuade him to go for option 2, so that he and I will never have to be so close together that we fall out?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the views that my hon. and learned Friend has expressed about the redevelopment of the judiciary buildings in Glasgow. He clearly appreciates that it is essential) y a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who, as he knows, has consulted on plans to increase the number of court rooms. I and my right hon. and learned Friend are aware of my hon. and learned Friend's views.

Privilege
3.31 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10.14 pm last night the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I have obviously given him notice of this—purported to raise with you what he described as a "point of privilege".
It would be of tremendous benefit to the House, Mr. Speaker, if you would remind us of the clear resolution passed on 6 February 1978, which laid down the procedure for raising a point of privilege. I can summarise it as giving you written notice of a complaint of breach of privilege after that breach had occurred. Should you find that a prima facie case had been made, you would notify the hon. Member of that in writing. He would then rise in his place and move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I think that it would be unfortunate if violence were done to that resolution by a precendent created last night. Would you reiterate that resolution, Mr. Speaker?
Secondly, on the substance of what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, if he now, after the event, claims that it was a point of order and not one of privilege, would it not be as well to remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that Speaker after Speaker has declared that he would not give rulings on hypothetical points as opposed to questioning events which have actually occurred?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for raising that point. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said in his submission that he was raising a matter of privilege. It was not a matter of privilege; I think that it was a slip of the tongue, and I took it to be so.
I readily confirm what the hon. Member for Tiverton said—that a complaint of breach of privilege should not be made on the Floor of the House, but sent to me in writing.
Later—
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I was a moment late and missed the statement that you have just made. However, when I saw you last night, I raised with you the question of a possible aspect of privilege and notified you of that. You kindly said that I could rise at 10.15 pm, which I did. In my statement I said that the matter related to privilege, which I have raised with you privately, and I checked what I had said in Hansard. That was what I said, and if I made a mistake in putting it into the wrong category, I wish to apologise to you and to the House.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely sorry to raise this matter, but you will recall that when we considered Question No. 6 on the Order Paper you would not allow my question to proceed, on the grounds that you interpreted the question as applying solely to Scotland. If you look at Question No. 6 you will see that it referred to the transfer of forestry planting from the north of Scotland further south. I submit that my question was entirely in order and I regret that I shall not now receive a ministerial answer.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I took "further south" to mean further south in Scotland, since the question was one for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman would have been totally in order if he had raised his question on Question No. 9 on sustaining the
"rural economy in the light of policies aimed at reducing agricultural production".
I am sorry, but I cannot do anything about it now.
Mr. Hardy: Arising from that, Mr. Speaker, do you therefore not accept that it is especially difficult for English Members who are interested in forestry matters, because we do not have any other alternative than to raise such matters at Scottish Question Time?
Mr. Speaker: I called a number of English Members during Scottish Questions today. [Interruption.] Scottish Members have an equal right to be called during English Questions. Therefore, it is only fair that English Members should have the right to be called during Scottish Questions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Arising out of questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I beg to move the Adjournment of the House under SO 20 on the subject of the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not had notice of that. I am dealing with points of order at the moment.

Division Lists
3.37 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be concerned to ensure the accuracy of Hansard, for history and for our own benefit. I think that there must be a mistake in today's Hansard, which shows that once again the alliance parties voted against each other in the Division last night. It proves that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, (Mr. Hughes) voted against the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Therefore, there must be a mistake in Hansard—[Interruption.]
Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think that we should hear the explanation.
Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was unfortunately absent.

State Security
3.38 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of questions it will be in your recollection that I came to see you, at your request, on this subject on Monday, at 2 pm in your house, arising out of questions—and no one could know the answers to those questions. Therefore, I apologise for any discourtesy in not giving you full notice that I wish to raise, under Standing Order No. 20,
"the role of the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the police entry into the BBC in Glasgow."
First of all, I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker. that the matter is important. It is important because it is simply not credible that the Lord Advocate could have properly performed his duties without informing himself as to the damage to the public interest caused by the Zircon film. Specifically, how does the Lord Advocate assess the damage to the public interest? How does the noble Lord Cameron of Lochbroom alone assess the damage to the public interest of a wholesale search of the BBC? May there not be a changing public interest as events proceed? Must there not come a time when Ministers say to themselves, "For heaven's sake, we have gone far enough."? [Interruption.]—
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order afterwards. May I just say that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is perfectly in order to make this SO 20 application arising out of the answer that he received to his question. However, he must make the case that it is urgent, specific and important.
Mr. Dalyell: How does Lord Cameron of Lochbroom assess the security interests without consulting the Foreign Office?
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman always gets away with it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must contain himself, please.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is always abusing the procedures of the House, and it is time it was stopped.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow has as much right as anybody to submit an application under Standing Order No. 20 arising from a question which has just been answered. It is not an abuse. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would also have that right, if he chose to exercise it.
Mr. Dalyell: Many more serious Conservative Members know that deep legal issues are involved. This is not a matter of cheap party politics. As the scene unfolds, is there not a continuing reassessment of the public interest? That is an important point.
I now have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. It is definite because it relates to the evidence that was given by a distinguished Conservative Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, to the Franks Committee in 1972. He said:
314
"In exercising this discretion the factors which the Attorney-General of the day takes into account are

1) The strength of the evidence.

2) The degree of culpability of the potential defendant."—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dalyell:

"3) The damage to the Public Interest, which has resulted from the disclosure.

4) The effect of Prosecution on the Public Interest."

The noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson as he now is, said:
"In considering factors relating to the Public Interest, I, and my predecessors, may consult other Ministers so that"—
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Dalyell:
"we are in a better position to assess the damage which has been caused and the effect which the Prosecution may have on the Public Interest."
The important legal point is whether the Solicitor-General is right or Professor Bradley—on mutatis mutandis, warrant and prosecution—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time—
Mr. Dalyell: Finally—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring me the title of his application under Standing Order No. 20?
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: No. I want the title of the hon. Gentleman's application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is sheer intimidation, that is what it is.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the role of the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the police entry into the BBC in Glasgow."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said in his submission, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is meant to be helpful—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to challenge my ruling.
Mr. Williams: Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was challenging the Chair and saying that you were not carrying out your duties. He is the one who should apologise.
My point of order is this. It is important for hon. Members to refresh their memories on the rules. Is it not a fact that we cannot raise a point of order in the middle of a Standing Order No. 20 application? If that is the case, it may help to cool future proceedings if, instead of hon. Members hopping up and down all the time, creating

315
difficulties for you, Mr. Speaker, you were to remind the House of that rule. Then perhaps we could have more orderly conduct.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Let us take them all at once. Mr. Forth first.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you help the House in the context of what has just happened and remind us of the criterion for making an application under Standing Order No. 20? There is genuine confusion about whether anything goes within a particular time limit or whether only a specific matter of urgency must be raised and the substance cannot be argued during the submission. It would help the House if you would remind us and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of the correct method of submitting a Standing Order No. 20 application.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. Member have a point of order on this matter? If so, I shall deal with them all at once.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Dickens rose—
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it not strike you as rather strange that writs should have been issued to stop a film being shown—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with this matter. Mr. Dickens.
Mr. Dickens: I am much obliged, Sir. On a point of order, you will recall that in the past, whenever I have
316
made a Standing Order No. 20 application, I have obeyed the courtesies of the House and have kept strictly within the three-minute time limit to which we are all supposed to adhere. This was not done today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) abused the courtesies of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The trouble is that points of order were raised when the hon. Gentleman was making his Standing Order No. 20 application. Therefore, I had to take it into account in assessing whether his three minutes had elapsed. It is far better—I quite agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—that points of order should not be raised in the middle of an SO 20 application. As to the hon. Member's question, I am pleased to reaffirm that, normally, applications under Standing Order No. 20 should be submitted to me by noon. But if a matter suddenly occurs subsequently in the Chamber, it is perfectly legitimate for an hon. Member to raise the matter under the Standing Order No. 20 procedure. It does not happen often, but it is possible to do it, and it happened today.
Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that if an emergency arises in the Chamber, that emergency normally relates, as far as you are concerned, only to Question Time emergencies, or does it relate to any time?
Mr. Speaker: Applications under Standing Order No. 20 must be raised at their proper time, which normally is immediately after statements, or, as happened today, when there are no statements, immediately after Question Time.

State Security

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY 1987
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Robert Banks

  Mr. Michael Marshall

  Mr. Tony Favell

Parental Leave
3.44 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes.
This is a radical and progressive measure for parents and children. I am proud that, as I understand it, this is the first time that a parental leave Bill has been presented to the House of Commons. In many ways, that is surprising, as the need for such a Bill is now widely recognised. Such Bills are widely available elsewhere in Europe. For example, 10 of the 12 EEC countries have such provisions. Britain is almost alone in denying working fathers leave for child care. My Bill rectifies that situation.
An employee will become entitled to parental leave when he or she is the parent of a child under two years of age, or of a disabled or adopted child under five years of age. The leave entitlement that I propose is 13 weeks for each parent when both are in paid employment, 26 weeks when an employee is a single parent, and four weeks for an employed parent when the other parent is not eligible for parental leave because of unemployment, for example. Part-time workers will get a pro rata leave entitlement. Parents will suffer no loss of basic pay for taking parental leave. They will be given the right to return to the same or similar work after an absence for child care. The Government will be empowered to establish a fund to reimburse some or all payments made for parental leave.
Parental leave is different from maternity and paternity leave. Maternity leave is a minimum period of leave of absence for the mother before and after the birth. Paternity leave, where it is allowed, gives some time off for the father at the birth of the new-born child and to support the mother immediately after the birth. Parental leave, by contrast, allows time off after the expiry of maternity and paternity leave over a longer period to care for the young baby. It is available equally to both men and women.
My Bill specifically divides the entitlement equally between the mother and the father—three months each. It is not transferable. I have learnt from the Swedish example, where men, for various reasons, transfer their leave to their wives, thus curtailing many of the benefits to be derived from parental leave. As the Equal Opportunities Commission pointed out, however it is used it is essential to ensure that fathers not only have the right to parental leave but take it up themselves instead of transferring their leave entitlement to the mother. Non-transferability, therefore, emphasises both the rights and the responsibilities of fathers in caring for their young children.
The benefits of parental leave are enormous. I have identified at least five benefits to mothers and fathers. First, it helps to promote equal opportunities in employment for women. Childbirth and child rearing in the overwhelming majority of cases result in a woman being denied equal employment opportunities. That is not her choice. Choice is denied her. The options that are available to a mother who might want to resume work are limited. If work is available, often it means a return to employment conditions that make no allowance for the
318
new circumstances of the mother, so parental leave promotes equal opportunities by giving women more options and more choice, knowing that time off is available for both herself and her husband to look after the baby and greater flexibility in resuming paid work.
Secondly, it helps women to overcome the damaging discontinuity in their employment. The Government's own women and employment study of 1984 showed that a mother of two is taken out of the labour force for an average of seven years because of her child care responsibilities. Employment rates for women with young children are very low in Britain—only a half of those in the United States and France and only a quarter of those in Sweden and Germany. The jobs that they manage to obtain are often poor-calibre, low-paid jobs that are mostly part time and that fail fully to use them or reward them for their skills. In addition, there are the long-term effects on a woman's career and income. For example, the loss of earnings for a typical mother of two could amount to £135,000 over her working life. Parental leave counters that.
The third benefit is that parental leave more fairly distributes responsibility for child care between the parents. Not only is this practically the case, but there is also an attitude-changing aspect, for the better. It challenges the view that child care is purely a woman's role. Instead, looking after children becomes recognised as the parents' joint responsibility.
Fourthly, parental leave improves family and child welfare. It helps in a small but important way to enable a mother and a father to work together as a team with their young baby. They are both more available to share the responsibilities, the burdens and the joys.
The fifth benefit is that parental leave gives dads a better deal. They have more time to spend with their young children and a better opportunity to fulfil their role as fathers. My Bill recognises that dads have both responsibilities and rights.
Of course, there are costs. For the EEC scheme, it would be between £31 million and £45 million. Mine would be more, because it is better, but it would still be well below 0·1 per cent. of the total wages and salaries bill and it could be shared between employers and the Treasury. However, these costs have to he set against the enormous benefits to individual mothers and fathers that I have just stated.
The fact is that parental leave creates jobs. It is estimated that it would create approximately 9,000 jobs. Peter Moss, the expert adviser to the House of Lords Sub-Committee that is looking at the EEC's parental leave proposals, said:
"Child-related discontinuity of employment does riot involve losses only for individual women. To the economy as a whole, it represents a massive underutilisation of human resources, a waste of skills and experience that has been taken for granted by successive Governments with an amazing indifference. There are similar losses to individual employers."
The balance of argument about parental leave is that it is beneficial. That is why the rest of Europe has begun to implement it, and it is the Government who have been the obstacle in Britain.
Parental leave is not a panacea on its own; it must accompany other advances, such as better maternity provision, paternity leave as a statutory right, leave for family reasons such as a child's illness, and a Government

319
boost to workplace nurseries and local authority childcare provision. Then we would be talking about policies for the family and against child abuse and neglect.
I pay tribute to the Maternity Alliance, which helped me with the Bill, and its maternity emergency campaign, of which parental leave is a part. It is holding a national rally at Central hall, Westminster on Monday 6 April, which will get widespread support. It kindly gave me a badge, which I am wearing. It says: "Parents care, care for parents." My Parental Leave Bill does just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Miss Joan Maynard, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Dave Nellist.

Parental Leave

  PARENTAL LEAVE
  Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 March and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) to behave in a child-like and imbecile manner while my hon. Friend was trying to introduce his Bill to improve the lot of the children of Britain?
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that we will have no display of bad manners in the Chamber. We are supposed to set an example.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.57 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 19th February 1987.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 19th February may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 20th February.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on first allotted day
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others);

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall he postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed to on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  When I announced last Thursday that this motion would be the first item of today's business, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) pointed out the
  "narrow distinction…between filibustering and natural verbosity"—[Official Report, 5 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 1149.]
  on the part of Scottish Members and urged me to reconsider the motion. While I have not been able to do so, his words reminded me of the only occasion previously when I have taken part in a Scottish debate. Almost three years ago, on 5 March 1984, I moved the timetable motion on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. On that occasion, only seven clauses out of 17 had been considered in 82 hours of Committee sittings. Progress has been greater during the Committee consideration of the Bill, but not so great that we believe consideration of the Bill could be more satisfactorily completed under the measured arrangements set out in the motion before us. I shall say more about those arrangements and progress so far in a moment, but first I should turn to the substance of the Bill.
  The proposals contained in the Bill are radical and wide-ranging. They would bring an end to the contentious system of domestic rating. In its place, the Bill would introduce community charges. The personal community charge will be the basis of the new system and will be payable to the local authority by each adult whose sole or main residence is in that area. A standard community charge would be payable in respect of second homes, and a collective community charge would be payable by the owners of premises where the residents stay for only short periods. There will also be a rebate scheme, which will ensure that those who are on the lowest incomes will not have to pay the full community charge. The Bill also contains proposals to reform the system of non-domestic rating. That will cover the period until the longer-term

  323
  introduction of a uniform business rate. I realise that these broad principles are only too familiar to hon. Members who have served on the Standing Committee. Even so, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to deal with them in more detail. There should be no doubt, however, that they represent a determined response to the challenge of finding an alternative to the present discredited rating system.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Keep a straight face.
  Mr. Biffen: When confronted by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), that exhortation is particularly difficult to comply with.
  Proposals so far-reaching and fundamental in nature do, of course, require consultation and careful consideration. These have received both. The debate on the reform of the rate system has been an important item on the political agenda for many years. A new development in that discussion was marked in January last year when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales published the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". This invited, and received, comments from organisations and individuals about the structure of the proposed changes. The comments led to the modification of the Green Paper proposals in some respects, for example the circumstances in which a collective rather than a personal community charge would be payable. Thus, even before my right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill on 27 November, its contents had had the benefit of careful scrutiny.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Whose scrutiny? Does the Leader of the House realise that the proposals for this iniquitous additional tax which is to be levied on working-class people and their families in Scotland probably makes them guinea pigs for the rest of Britain and does not have the approval of the people of Scotland? Is he aware that the vast majority, as is shown in opinion polls, reject the proposals and that the vast majority of the Scottish people's elected representatives, whether at local government level or at parliamentary level, reject the proposals? Why are the Government so hell-bent on expediting the Bill, which is yet another attack on the living standards of working-class people and their families in Scotland? The Government have no mandate to impose such legislation. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members of the Committee are right to fight the Bill tooth and nail. We shall continue to do that on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Biffen: The last time that I saw the hon. Gentleman in the context of this Bill was in Committee, and he was much quieter although, in that sedentary way, he was somewhat effective.
  The point that I have been making is that the Bill has been available for scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman confesses that he and his colleagues have applied scrutiny to it. As to the ultimate public judgment, that clearly will lie for the future, but scrutiny has not been lacking so far. The Bill received its Second Reading after a full day's debate on 9 December last year by 258 votes to 204. The First Scottish
  324
  Standing Committee began its consideration of the Bill on 16 December, and has been sitting four times a week since then to debate the Bill.
  I should refer here to the sittings motion which the Committee passed at its first meeting, enabling it to meet four times each week. The hon. Member for Provan referred to it last Thursday as
  "an unprecedented and provocative sittings motion"—[Official Report, 5 February 1987; Vol. 109, c.1149.]
  I accept at once that the motion is clearly unusual, but there was no doubt that the Bill would require extensive consideration in Committee, and it seems to me merely realistic, rather than provocative, to accept from the start that this would be the case and to work on that basis.
  While precedent should not be the sole determinant of our actions, the hon. Gentleman may find it comforting as far as precedents are concerned, if I draw his attention to the first meeting, on 10 May 1977, of the Standing Committee considering the Price Commission Bill. At that first meeting, the Committee agreed to meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10.30 am and 4 pm. The fact that this was agreed without much debate and without a Division really proves the reasonableness of the Conservative Opposition.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps the Leader of the House might contemplate the possibility that there was agreement then because there had been consultation. That is not the case here.
  Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the circumstances were broadly similar. In one instance, however, we have wise Tory legislation designed to bring about major fiscal reform and in the other we had dirigiste and interventionist Socialist legislation designed further to impede the working of our national economy.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: As a former Minister who had some responsibility for the Price Commission Bill, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was broadly welcomed by the Conservative Opposition as it moved towards dismantling price controls set in place by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
  Mr. Biffen: When I looked at that particularly anaemic legislation. I inquired whether the hon. Gentleman was a part author. I am not sure whether he was, but my research shows that he was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill.
  As for the Bill that is now under consideration, the Committee has made full use of its sittings. It has sat for 101 hours and has completed its consideration of only 20 clauses. This has included more than four sittings on clause 1, abolishing domestic rates. More than two sittings have been spent on clause 13 dealing with the collective community charge. Of course there are important questions to be raised and discussed, but the rate of progress to date might suggest that a further 70 hours or so in Committee would be required for the remaining 14 clauses before the House as a whole would have an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail. I believe that the House would prefer to have an opportunity to consider the Bill more promptly.
  The motion would enable that to occur and allow the Committee to complete its consideration at a measured pace. It would enable the Committee to hold a further six sittings. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a standing order which provides that no right hon. or hon. Member is allowed to read his speech? Is it not a measure of the right hon. Gentleman's insincerity that he, of all people, should be reading his Civil Service gobbledegook instead of giving his usual heart-to-heart address?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members frequently refer to their notes. That goes for the Front Bench too.
  Mr. Biffen: I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that all of my best heart-to-hearts are carefully prepared by the resident Miltons in the Department.
  While significant aspects of the proposals remain to be discussed—I refer to the replacing of rate support grant by revenue support grant and the rebate system—not all of the clauses left for consideration are of that magnitude, and there has already been an opportunity for more general discussion in consideration of earlier clauses.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As I am one of those who has been privileged not to be subjected to the boredom of sitting on the Committee, and as one of those whose friends have come near to death by boredom by the irresponsible opposition of the Labour party to a measure which is greatly popular in Scotland, may I suggest that it would be a unique occasion for my right hon. Friend to be able to say to many of his friends, "Delivered from death by boredom with a guillotine?"
  Mr. Biffen: Yes, and if it will facilitate the proceedings I will say just that. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for speaking for me.
  The motion would provide also for the House to take the Bill through its Report and Third Reading on two allotted days. The first of these days could last until midnight, the second until 10 pm. They represent an opportunity of perhaps more than 14 hours more debate on the Bill. I do not wish to detain the House further. The Bill is recognised as a significant step in local government in Scotland and beyond, and by broadening tax base it seeks to strengthen local accountability.
  Mr. Canavan: Nonsense.
  Mr. Biffen: The Bill has received extensive consideration to date, and I am confident that the Committee's consideration of the rest of the bill will be no less effective than it has been so far. This measure will enable that consideration to go forward expeditiously. I hope to take the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) with me when we vote.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House began with his recollections of times past, especially the last occasion when he chopped and guillotined a Scottish Bill. I, too, have one or two recollections which are perhaps worth sharing with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
  I begin by saying that this is the tenth guillotine of this Parliament. No fewer than five of the 10 Bills that have been guillotined have been directed against local government. That, in itself, is evidence of the Government's open hostility to local democracy and of their determination to crib, cabin and confine local
  326
  councils by limiting their expenditures and revenues, and even, as we saw two years ago in the case of the metropolitan councils, by abolishing them altogether.
  This measure takes another long stride towards diminishing local democracy and increasing central Government control. I cannot find—
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if local government conducted its business in the way that this Committee has conducted its business in terms of the time taken to discuss perfectly simple matters, even he might consider that we should legislate to change the way in which local government did its business?
  Mr. Shore: I do not know what goes on in Scottish local councils, but I would he surprised if a matter of such importance was or would be discussed at less length in major councils in Scotland than in the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not take the lion. Gentleman's point.
  I cannot find and have not heard this afternoon from the Lord Privy Seal any convincing argument for introducing the guillotine, and certainly not for introducing it at this stage. The Bill, which abolishes the domestic rating system and replaces it by a community charge, is a remarkable innovation. On 9 December 1986 on Second Reading the Secretary of State for Scotland described it as
  "a radical and reforming measure".
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland claimed it was
  "one of the most fundamental reforms of local government finance in Scotland for a generation or more."
  Both those descriptions were understatements. The measure is in fact a revolution—or, rather, a counterrevolution—in local government finance.
  No-one can doubt that the Bill deserves the closest scrutiny, and all the more so when we recall that its central proposal was discussed and dismissed by the Layfield committee in 1977 and again by the present Government, after two years of Green Paper consultation, in their White Paper of August 1983. What did the Goverment's White Paper say? The Government, in their White Paper after the last election, said:
  "There is little point in replacing rates with an untried and unfamiliar system having little support from the outset. The Government had therefore decided to make reforms to the rating system which is basically sound but needs improvement."
  The Government, in the English and Welsh White Paper on similar proposals, said:
  "The Government recognise that rates are far from being an ideal or popular tax. But they do have advantages…they are well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade. They act as an incentive to the most efficient use of property. No property tax can be directly related to the ability to pay; but rate rebates, now incorporated in housing benefit, together with supplementary benefit, have been designed to reduce hardship. The Government have concluded and announced to Parliament that rates should remain for the foreseeable future the main source of local revenue for local government."
  The Government have done a complete volte face, and reversed their conclusions or only three years ago. They have done so in a complex Bill of 34 clauses, plus six dense schedules that fill no fewer than 26 pages of text.
  No-one can argue—and the Leader of the House did not—that the Bill has been blocked by delaying tactics.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: It has been argued.
  Mr. Shore: No, no-one has argued that point.
  Mr. Forsyth: The right hon. Gentleman may not have had an opportunity to read the proceedings in Committee held last night in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) admitted that the purpose of the Opposition in Committee had been to wreck the Bill. That has nothing to do with careful scrutiny or deciding issues. It was clear from the start that the Opposition had no constructive role to play. Surely, in the interests of scrutiny, we should accept this guillotine measure?
  Mr. Shore: I cannot for a moment accept that that argument can be sustained when we recall the progress that was made in discussing and deciding some of the most important clauses in the Bill. Seventeen clauses have been dealt with in 17 sittings. Those clauses included provisions for phasing out and abolishing domestic rates, the future of non-domestic rates and the new system of community charges. Those are the three major features of the Bill. The fact that the Committee got through those three major aspects gives the lie straight away to the assertion that the Opposition determined to wreck the Bill and to stop it in its tracks after the first votes had taken place.
  What is still to be covered is the complex administration of the community charge system; the replacement of rate support grant by revenue support grant; the important question of rebates; and the new system of charging for water and sewage services.
  Those issues should not be squeezed into the rigid framework of a timetable motion. The idea that these matters, 17 clauses and the greater part of the schedules, can be dealt with in six sittings is ludicrous. One would have thought that the danger of ill-considered legislation, pushed through with inadequate thought and large Parliamentary majorities. would be particularly fresh in the Government's mind after the recent Local Government Finance Bill. That was the subject of another timetable motion only a fortnight ago. It was rushed through to make lawful six years of unlawful rate support grant legislation. That legislation was in itself the consequence of incompetent drafting and insufficient Parliamentary scrutiny. However, unlike this Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill had at least the excuse that it had to get through quickly to meet the rate support grant payment timetable before 1 April.
  Even this insensitive Government must be aware that they have only a small minority of seats in Scotland. Their new measures are opposed, as the Second Reading debate made crystal clear, by the Labour party, the SNP, the Liberals and the Social Democrats in Scotland. There is no parliamentary majority for this measure in Scotland and I doubt whether there is any popular electoral support for it either. The Government's motive for haste is clearly political and electoral. They believe that a measure that abolishes domestic rates in Scotland will he popular there, provided only that people do not have time to digest the far more unacceptable alternative, the community charge, which is to take its place.
  The Government have sought deliberately to discredit the present rating system by making massive cuts in the rate support grant, thus forcing local councils to make up for some part of the lost Government grant by rate increases. Those increases have, inevitably, been high. The facts are indisputable. Rate support grant accounted for 68·5 per cent. of relevant expenditure in the last year of the
  328
  Labour Government. The present level, in the most recent year, is 56 per cent. The average domestic rate in Scotland was £132 in 1978–79. Last year the average was £392.
  The same has happened in England and Wales, but unlike England and Wales, where revaluation of property values was irresponsibly cancelled in 1979, Scotland has gone ahead with rate revaluations and these have brought many shocks to Scottish ratepayers and near-panic to the Scottish Tory party.
  It is clear why the Government wish to substitute a community charge, or poll tax, for domestic rating. First, it is regressive. As the Secretary of State gleefully pointed out in his speech on Second Reading,
  "personal community charge is to be payable by everyone aged 18 or over with their sole or main residence in each local authority area. There will be only very limited exemptions—those who are still receiving child benefit, and those who are resident in prisons or hospitals."
  Thus, apart from the rebate, virtually every adult over the age of 18 will be charged the same amount, irrespective of his or her income. A wealthy couple living in a large house will pay exactly the same amount as a low-paid worker and his wife living in a modest terraced house or council flat. Even the very poorest, who are wholly exempt from rates today, will have to pay a minimum 20 per cent. of the community charge. Regressive taxation is a classic Tory fiscal policy.
  The second attraction of the new system to the Government is that it will further limit the power of local councils by removing from their control the imposition of local taxation on industrial and commercial properties. It is the Government. not the local authorities, who will decide henceforth the level of non-domestic rates, which will be limited to increases in the cost of living index. Non-domestic rates account for more than half of locally raised revenues today. Can any hon. Member seriously argue that this is not a great diminution of the powers that presently exist, as they have long existed, in the hands of local councils and local democracy?
  The third attraction for the Government, and closely linked to the second, is that the new system is bound to discourage and limit public expenditure by local councils. Since non-domestic rates will be controlled by the Government, henceforth increases in local authority expenditure will fall wholly upon the community charge. The higher local authority expenditure, the higher the poll tax will be, regardless of whether there is a need for high and increasing expenditure in the areas concerned.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State sought to justify this by saying:
  "This is the means by which the new system will provide its essential element of accountability, since the personal community charge is to be payable by everyone aged 18 or over…it is intended that the charge should be for practical purposes a universal obligation on the adult population"—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 200–69.]
  "No taxation without representation," was the cry of the American revolution in 1776. The Government are now arguing for a new doctrine, "No representation without taxation." It is wrong at this stage to abort consideration of this novel, ill-considered, regressive, punitive and anti-democratic Bill. I urge the House to reject the timetable motion.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood): The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, understandably, that he did not know much about what

  329
  happened in Scottish local councils, and it is obvious that he knows nothing about what happened in the Committee. His speech was a grave discourtesy to those who serve on the Committee, as he has patently not read a word of its proceedings. We have sat for 101 hours or so considering the Bill.
  The Opposition have not had a particularly good press.The Scotsman said today that the highlight of the proceedings was the arrival of the tea lady. That depends on one's view—I should have thought that the highlight of the proceedings was the arrival of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who was in rumbustious form, just as he was before he left the Chamber today.
  Mr. Henderson: Does it not say something about the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and his hon. Friends that the hon. Gentleman uses undemocratic means to advance his cause but when he has the opportunity to talk about the timetable on the Bill he fails to do so, preferring to raise another bogus point of order rather than argue his case in an honourable and democratic way?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that none of us is responsible for the actions or the speeches of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West.
  This allocation of time motion may go down in history as the Glasgow Herald guillotine. We were making not unreasonable progress until an editorial in the Glasgow Herald criticised the effectiveness of the Opposition Front Bench. Thereafter, progress slowed down remarkably. The effectiveness of the Opposition Front Bench has been criticised also by the Daily Record, which is the Scottish Socialist equivalent of Pravda saying that Mr. Gorbachev should pull his socks up.
  Throughout the Committee, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have listened courteously to the points made by the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Minister made two concessions when he accepted two Opposition amendments. The House will be agog to know more about the intellectual force and vigour, combined with rigorous research, which lay behind the concessions forced out of my hon. Friend. The first was an amendment defined by the Opposition as a probing amendment. The second they put forward with the argument that they did not understand what it was and asked my hon. Friend to explain it. That has been the standard of the Opposition argument in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has argued that the Opposition deliberately tried to delay the Bill. I am not sure that I accept that. I think rather that the Opposition have wasted a great deal of time through their confused arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) made that point effectively in an early intervention. The Opposition are confused in their analysis of the present system. The analysis of the rating system put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was as follows:
  "Rates are about as fair a form of taxation as one can have. Income tax is unfair and VAT is much more unfair than rates".
  He repeated that point so that his hon. Friends could understand it, saying about rates:
  "They are fair, or as fair as any other form of taxation."
  That was before lunch. After lunch, that analysis was clarified, if that is the correct term, by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). He said
  330
  "The burden for paying for local services has been shifted from the progressive taxes levied by the Treasury onto relatively regressive taxes such as the rating system."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 January 1987; c. 133–52.]
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is no doubt very interested in this clarification of the Labour party's analysis of various forms of taxation. The view of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Scottish affairs is that income tax is progressive, according to the hon. Member for East Lothian, but unfair. according to the hon. Member for Cathcart, whereas rates are "relatively regressive" according to the hon. Member for East Lothian but
  "about as fair a form of taxation as one can have",
  according to the hon. Member for Cathcart.
  Mr. Henderson: That is .just the Front Bench.
  Mr. Stewart: No doubt we can look forward to the promotion of the hon. Members for East Lothian and for Cathcart to the shadow Treasury team in the near future. That confusion accounted for a great deal of the time wasted in Committee.
  Let us consider the confusion on policy. The policy was spelt out early on in the Committee by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who we all wish a speedy recovery and a safe return to the House. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "Our party, from its grass roots, has decided through all its consultations that the road to take is that of local income tax."—-[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 December 1986; c. 80.]
  That may have been the policy at the grass roots, but it was not the policy elsewhere. I am not quite sure what the opposite of grass roots is—it may be tree tops. or even coconuts. At any rate, the policy at the grass roots had not been passed on to the coconuts on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Cathcart, in one of his best speeches in Committee—it was actually quite a good speech—effectively attacked the whole concept of local income tax. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) initiated that debate.
  Throughout the Committee stage, the hon. Member for East Lothian kept saying that he did not like rates, while the hon. Member for Cathcart continued to raise arguments in favour of them. That is why we wasted so much time.
  Time was also wasted by the consistent failure of Opposition Members to put forward their policy. Neither the hon. Member for Cathcart nor the hon. Member for East Lothian presented any policy, but eventually all was revealed. Into the intellectual void created by those two hon. Members stepped, without hesitation and with a firm stride, the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), saying:
  "If the Minister asks again for the Labour party policy on rates I think that we should give him it."
  That comment brought thunderous applause from the Conservative Benches. He continued:
  "We should phone Walworth road and get the Labour party's policy on rating since 1905 and read it to him word for word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph. He would find it illuminating."
  My hon. Friend the Minister replied:
  "That is the first constructive suggestion that we have had from the Opposition Benches. I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation".
  The hon. Member for Paisley, North paused and then said:

  331
  "I am glad of the invitation."
  There was a longer pause before he continued, with reference to the document:
  "It is somewhat lengthy".
  At that point there was the following intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart:
  "And applies only to England and Wales."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 January 1987; c. 162–3.]
  All is revealed. A genuine seeker after truth who wishes to establish the Labour party in Scotland's alternative policy to the Abolition of Domestic Rates, Etc. (Scotland) Bill must go to Walworth road—not an obviously convenient location for the average Scottish seeker after truth, but never mind—and dig out a major tome entitled "Labour Party Policy on Rates in England and Wales since 1905". Continuing nonsense of that kind wasted much of the Committee's time.
  I do not wish to suggest for a moment that constructive points were not put forward by the Oppposition. Generally, those points were put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). Indeed, it was noticeable that the atmosphere of genial relaxation that surrounded my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench changed when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan rose and the advisers leaned forward and grasped their pencils because the hon. Gentleman put forward genuine points.
  Some productive matters were revealed in Committee—notably, in regard to my constituency, a very helpful statement by the Opposition that the residents of Eastwood were the first and major beneficiaries of the community charge. The hon. Member for Cathcart referred to them as the largest group of beneficiaries in Scotland, although it must have been a close-run thing between my constituents and those represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). It was also helpful that the Labour party repeated its policy that Eastwood district should be abolished and that the good people of Eastwood should become part of Glasgow. It was also helpful that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland put forward the case for a local income tax at great length, but with little detail, admitting by implication that a local income tax under any rational system must mean the abolition of very small district councils such as Eastwood. Those were some of the plus points in Committee.
  I thought that the Opposition tactics on the Bill were somewhat dubious. I thought that they would make sufficient progress in Committee to avoid a guillotine and then go for all-night sessions on the Floor of the House when, of course, the Committee members could he supplemented by the battle-hardened battalions from Govan, Garscadden, Monklands and elsewhere.
  Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend has used the word guillotine in reference to this instrument of execution. As this is a Scottish Bill, should we not use the proper terminology and call it a "maiden"? The Scottish equivalent of the guillotine was the maiden, so we should be maidening the Bill.
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that comment. Perhaps I should use the official term and refer to an allocation of time motion.
  332
  I conclude that the Labour party tactics are probably correct because the Opposition dare not expose their arguments or their lack of policy to extended debate on the Floor of the House. I believe that the guillotine is perfectly reasonable. It allows the Committee and the House to consider the outstanding matters with a reasonable timetable. It will protect the Labour party from extended debate on the Floor of the House on its total lack of policy on a subject of importance to the Scottish people. My right hon. Friend has put forward a reasonable timetable for the Bill and I urge the House to accept it.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: On these occasions when we debate motions to allocate time, there is an element of ritual. That has the effect of driving the press from the Gallery because they seem to have heard these arguments before. However, I do not believe that the House should regard these matters lightly.
  The Leader of the House admitted that this Bill is of considerable importance. It is of considerable constitutional importance, in that it substantially alters the balance of power between central and local government. It curtails the effective use of financial powers hitherto enjoyed by local government to provide the services which Parliament has prescribed that local government shall operate. The Bill sweeps away the principal local source of revenue for local government which has operated in Scotland for more than 200 years. It does so by a reversal of policy as dramatic and unexpected as anything that has occurred in the lifetime of this Government—a Government not prone to making U-turns.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) drew attention in his remarkably perceptive speech to the regressive horrors of the Bill. The concept of a tax being levied upon every citizen in Scotland regardless of ability to pay is, not surprisingly, regarded with horror throughout Scotland. An independent opinion poll conducted during the passage of the Bill showed that 86 per cent. of the Scottish people believed that local taxation should be related to ability to pay. If ever a thumbs-down was given to a measure to which the Government appear to attach importance in terms of winning votes at the coming election, this is it.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for public service broadcasting, we pay a television licence fee or tax which is unrelated to ability to pay and which, for many people, will be lower—or higher—than they would be required to pay as a community charge for the range of local government services? Has not the hon. Gentleman got this out of perspective?
  Mr. Maclennan: The financing of television has very little to do with this Bill on local government. The hon. Gentleman had better sort out whether it is higher or lower before he makes another such intervention.
  As the Bill is of major constitutional importance, its Committee stage could have been taken on the Floor of the House, as has been the practice with earlier constitutional Bills. We could also have argued that it should have been considered first by an all-party pre-legislative Committee that would have taken evidence from those who would be affected by it and those who would have to administer the new system of local taxation. It would have been an ideal candidate for such a

  333
  procedure. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I proposed that to the Lord Privy Seal, who refused even to meet us to discuss the issue. That demonstrates his scant regard for the opinion of people in Scotland, as expressed by those who represent them in Parliament. He has been cavalier from the beginning in his handling of the Bill, as is illustrated by its extraordinary timetabling since it was published.
  The Bill was given a First Reading on 27 November and a Second Reading only a week later. That was all the time allowed to local authorities and people throughout Scotland to form their views on the Bill and their recommendations about what could be done to improve it.
  Mr. Michael Hirst: I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the constitutional aspects of the Bill and especially by his suggestion that it should have been exposed to a pre-legislative Committee so that its details might have been considered further. Can he assure the House that if the alliance was in a future Government, it would ensure that all legislation was considered by a pre-legislative Committee?
  Mr. Maclennan: The alliance parties have always believed that major constitutional reform should proceed on the basis of agreement and consensus so far as possible. We not only preach that, we shall practise it.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman saying yes or no to my hon. Friend's question?
  Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman simply behaves like a parrot, he will do better to keep his seat. The answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) is that measures to reform the constitution must enjoy the support of a majority of hon. Members and it is highly desirable that that support should be drawn from both sides of the House. That is a well recognised convention of Parliament.
  The Bill is designed to limit the power of local government to spend money, and although the Minister dressed it up as providing for greater local accountability, the reality is that, by the Government's admission, local authorities will have the power to determine what services should be offered in respect of only 13 per cent, of the moneys which they will raise by a poll tax. The Bill has always been controversial and has aroused widespread hostility.
  I had started to discuss the manner in which the Government have handled the Bill. Its Second Reading was on 9 December and it was committed to Standing Committee a week later. That was another period during which people could make suggestions about how the Bill could be improved. As the Lord Privy Seal admits, at the first sitting, the Government moved an almost unprecedented sittings motion to ensure that the Committee would sit four times a week and for long hours to consider the Bill in detail. That put pressure not only on Members of Parliament but on all those outside the House who will be affected by the measure and who wish to make representations on it. They include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Consumer Council, the National Union of Ratepayers Associations and many others. In taking longer than usual to consider
  334
  the early clauses, Labour Members of the Committee were simply trying to provide time to those who wished to prepare their formal submissions and amendments to try to improve the Bill.
  We must also consider what happened in Committee. The Lord Privy Seal had the good grace to admit that reasonable progress has been made and that we have proceeded, broadly speaking, at the rate of one clause for each sitting. But the clauses are extremely important. The first clause provided for the complete abolition of domestic rates, and we also considered the way in which non-domestic rates would be determined, the limited powers of local authorities following the introduction of provisions whereby the Secretary of State will control these matters, the highly contested question of how the community charge will be applied to students at university, how a standard community charge will be levied and who will be liable to pay it, and the calculation of the collective community charge and those who will be liable to pay it. It seems quite unreasonable to expect that these matters could have been dealt with any more quickly than by one clause per sitting.
  That, however, is not the only point of importance in considering the progress made on the Bill. The Bill itself is in large measure an enabling Bill. It leaves undefined many matters which are of great importance in the administration of the new tax system. It provides, if my accounting is correct, no fewer than 47 times, that matters will be prescribed, following the passage of the Bill through the House. Within the body of the Bill, and in the schedules still to come there are 31 references to circumstances being prescribed. If a Committee is to serve any useful purpose in elucidating the Government's intention, it must above all have in mind the need to determine what the Secretary of State intends should be prescribed, what the circumstances are to be; and when there is so much hidden from the public view as there is in this Bill it is right to seek to tease it out.
  In so far as the Committee took time over these matters, it was because the Ministers were so forthcoming about the contents of subordinate legislation which will flow from this Bill, almost of all of which will be enacted by negative procedure and with no subsequent debate in this House. There are a number of other references to the discretion of the Secretary of State. There are eight references to his exercising powers "as may be determined", two to "as he considers appropriate" and two to "as he thinks fit". All these are occasions when the Secretary of State has wide powers of discretion in the practical operation of the Bill. The Committee would not have been doing its job properly if it had not attempted to ascertain the Minister's intentions in these respects.
  The burden of the Government's case has been that the House must take it on trust that the Secretary of State will operate the Bill according to his best judgment of what is administratively convenient. In almost all cases, when he was asked to say what would be the content of the subordinate legislation, that was the gist of the reply, that it would be a matter for the convenience of those who had to operate the Bill. This was the case even when there were certain issues touching on the liberty of the subject and touching on confidentiality of information—empowering, for example, the registration officer to nominate persons to give information to him concerning the compilation of the register which would involve the most serious invasions of confidential administration, requiring

  335
  local authorities to surrender to him information given them for completely different purposes. It is right that the Committee should have lingered on points such as that and should have sought to persuade the Minister that such broad and arbitrary power should be curtailed by the inclusion of at least some criteria in the Bill itself.
  One is bound to ask why the Government are in such a hurry. There has been no mention of this so far in the debate. The Lord Privy Seal vouchsafed that we would continue to make good progress under the proposed timetable. Let me make it plain that I have never objected to the introduction of timetables, provided that it was done by agreement across the Floor of the House and with the consent of all parties. It can lead to orderly discussion. But the time for such a discussion is not when the Bill is in train, but before it has been taken into Committee. Why does the Lord Privy Seal feel it so necessary to complete the Committee stage by 19 February? If we were to continue to proceed at the rate at which we have been proceeding, there is not much doubt that the Bill would have been through not just Committee but all its stages in this House by Easter and through all its stages in another place by early summer.
  One is bound to conclude that there is some reason external to the Bill which is driving the Government along this course. The reason is not far to seek. It is fairly clear that the Government have in mind that the Bill should be enacted sufficiently early to enable them to call a general election with the Bill on the statute book at any time after the Chancellor has introduced his Budget and the Prime Minister has returned from Moscow, having talked to Secretary Gorbachev: she wishes to have this little measure in her pocket.
  Far be it from me to counsel the Government on what will or will not help them to win an election in Scotland. All I can say is that they are more foolish than I believe them to be if they think that this measure will win them a single vote in Scotland. The reality is that the Bill is seen for what it is, a regressive Bill which imposes a tax on those who can ill afford to pay it. It seems to be a Bill that is taking from local government powers to spend on services which it has enjoyed in the past. The Bill is seen as an arrogation of power to the centre which is, of course, quite typical of this Government. The Government are being cavalier about the possibility that they have got anything in the Bill wrong, despite the fact that, in an earlier case to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred, they had to bring forward amending legislation to legalise an earlier local government finance Bill which had resulted in six years of illegality due very largely to the same kind of approach to legislation which we see here.
  I am not one to complain about attempts to bring about orderly debate, but I am opposed to precipitate debate, particularly in matters of this kind, which have been highly divisive, complex and inequitable in their effect. I hope that the House will resist the motion, because it is quite unnecessary to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of this parliamentary session. There is no good case for the motion, and I hope that the House will resist it.
  4.58 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I am afraid that I have not had the privilege of being a member of the Standing
  336
  Committee, so I have missed the tremendous arguments that have gone on through the night for over a hundred hours. Having listened to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) I am not surprised that they have gone on for so long. It is perhaps a happy coincidence that on the Order Paper are the amendments to Standing Orders relative to short speeches in both the House and the Scottish Grand Committee, and perhaps the hon. Member will take that to heart.
  I am disappointed that the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) have just left the Chamber. Some of us have strongly argued the case put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure for timetabling debate in Standing Committees. Had our motion to do that been accepted last year, there is no doubt that the 34 clauses of this Bill could have been covered easily in a hundred hours, had the Bill been timetabled with the agreement of both the Front Benches, allowing for adequate discussion of each clause.
  That surely is such a simple supposition that it is disappointing that the Front Benches of the Conservative and Labour parties are so resolutely against the timetabling of Committee stages. That would be logical, because Members would have far more opportunity to discuss each clause, with a reasonable time scale for each sitting. I hope that, the more of these guillotine motions we have, the more likely it will be that we shall get to timetabling Standing Committees.
  Anyone who has been in Parliament for even a short time accepts that when the Opposition set out to show their virility by achieving a guillotine, it is not too difficult for them to do so, but it is done at the expense of a detailed discussion of each clause and schedule. In turn, that puts a greater onus on Members of another place who feel that they have a duty to do what we have been unable to accomplish in this Chamber or in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this case we have managed within the 100 hours to deal with all the major points of principle in the Bill?
  Sir Hector Monro: I am not so sure that we have. I have read most, but not all, of the proceedings. In the latter part of the Bill there are important issues such as the register, rebates and water and sewerage charges. No doubt many new clauses will be put down for discussion. Because the Opposition have been so dilatory on the early part of the Bill, these important issues will not be discussed even though 100 hours have been spent in Committee so far.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is preaching sweet reasonableness about the way the proceedings should be conducted. What does he think about the Government publishing an extremely controversial Bill one week, arranging Second Reading debate for the following week and expecting the standing committee to sit both morning and afternoon only one week later? Did that allow reasonable time for consideration by hon. Members or by people outside the House?
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman was well aware of what was coming in the Bill. He had the whole of the Christmas recess to consult anyone he wanted. There was adequate time to prepare the vicious attack that he wished to launch. We were led to believe that there was to be a devastating attack on the Conservative party today. What

  337
  do we find? There are eight Labour Members on the Back Benches. There is not one Scottish nationalist here. There is now one Liberal Member here after the debate has been going on for a long time; he is an English Member who has managed to get back from Greenwich, no doubt by boat. It is astonishing that not one Scottish Liberal and only one member of the SDP has been here for what was to be a great attack on the timetable motion and the way that the Government have handled the Bill in Standing Committee.
  Members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have come down in cohorts at great expense to the ratepayers to show their opposition. Here they find only eight supporters on the Labour Benches. That does not show much strength of opposition from Labour Members of Parliament against the motion or against the Bill.
  The Opposition have not considered constructively the positive advantages of the Bill, such as community charges, which will be fairer to single people and widows. The Government are giving Members the opportunity to change a system that is outmoded. If we were starting from scratch today, who would have thought of taxing the valuation of houses as the best way of financing local government?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Labour party.
  Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed, the Labour party wants to keep that system. The alliance wants a system of local income tax, which is the most hopeless proposition that has been made throughout the debate.
  Mr. John Corrie: Even worse than that, is it not a fact that the Opposition intend to rate agricultural buildings, which would mean a severe curtailment of the income of farmers?
  Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed. I was trying to keep in relatively low key.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also keep to the motion that is before the House.
  Sir Hector Monro: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you feel that I have kept to the issue of why we should have adopted the proposal of the Select Committee on Procedure to timetable Standing Committees.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was merely seeking to prevent the debate from turning into a discussion about agricultural or any other rating.
  Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is of crucial interest to everyone in Scotland that the Labour party intends to rate agricultural land. That is important relative to a Bill dealing with rating in Scotland. However, I shall say no more because the point has been made. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am coming to that point. I did not want to spoil a reference to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) who has made many constructive comments in Committee. I look forward to his contribution. If I were looking for supporters on timetabling Committee stages I am sure that he would be the first to join me.
  The sad thing about the Bill is the incredible opposition of local authorities in Scotland. They have never shown so little wish to change as at present. They are reluctant to consider any proposition that would mean a change in
  338
  their administration procedures. When the register and community charges are enforced, with all the modern technology that an office can use these days, the operation of the system will be not only much fairer, but simpler.
  Mr. John Maxton: Who wrote the Bill?
  Sir Hector Monro: One gets bored by the childish interventions of the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] About 99 hours of the 100 hours spent in Committee have been taken up by interventions by the hon. Gentleman.
  I hope that the House will support strongly the motion to restrict further discussion in Standing Committee so that we can get on with the Bill, get it to another place and get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Bob McTaggart: I became a member of the Standing Committee only after the Christmas recess because of the unfortunate illness of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I am pleased to report to the House that my hon. Friend is making a good, sound recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I only wish that the same could be said for me, because of my involvement in Standing Committee.
  There is a total of seven Opposition Members in Standing Committee. For much of the proceedings, we have not had our total complement. Yet we are now considering a motion to introduce a guillotine on the proceedings of the Committee, although it could not be argued that hon. Members have had sufficient time to examine the Bill paragraph by paragraph and clause by clause.
  This is a very important Bill. The clauses relating to collective community charges show that the Bill has been put together hurriedly, without consideration for the almost impossible burden that it will place on Scottish local authorities, quite apart from the individual ratepayer. The ambiguity of many of the references shows that the Government have not gone over the finer points of the Bill, and have not considered any exemptions for any sector of the public and intend to leave the already hard-pressed local authorities to pick up the pieces and clear up the mess.
  Representations have been made to the Minister by groups such as Shelter and the Council for Single Homeless and by other bodies concerned with the plight of the mentally handicapped and people receiving severe disablement benefits. The Minister has chosen to ignore all those representations. In my constituency there are many hostels for the homeless and the mentally handicapped and it is grossly unfair to expect those people, with all the other burdens that they have to carry, to be faced with a collective community charge.
  There are many multi-occupancy properties in my constituency and one landlord often controls several properties. Does the Minister believe that such landlords—at best people who are very busy and at worst Rachmans who are unscrapulous—will keep daily records of the tenants and apportion the collective community charge? I am sure that in such cases many landlords will deduct a flat sum from tenants who already have very little, and that the local authority, if it is lucky, will receive some of that money.

  339
  The number of people living in hostels for the homeless and in hostels for battered wives and so on, is increasing all the time, and the problems that those people will face will be quite insurmountable. It will prove difficult for them to obtain the rebates to which they are justly entitled. I have a large number of unemployed people and people on supplementary benefit in my constituency, and they will bear an unfair portion of this new tax. Two wards in my constituency will be expected to pay an extra 42 per cent. and an extra 35 per cent. How can the Minister deny that that is anything other than a tax on the poor and a pre-election sop to the middle-class home owner?
  The Government have already had plenty of time to consider the average Tory voter and they realise that most middle-class high-earning families in which only one member of the family is working and earning a high salary will pay less of the new tax. That will be a popular vote catcher and the Government hope that it will be in time for the general election. It exposes a total lack of care or consideration by the Government for the plight of the large and growing army of disadvantaged people. A family of four, all of whom are working but in low-paid jobs, will often earn, collectively, less than one middle-class manager. Yet that family will have to pay four times more in community charges. That is a blatantly unfair distribution of resources. A family of four hard-working people is not more likely to use the services of a local authority than the executive family with a leisurely life style.
  The Bill will widen even further the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. The poor will be penalised simply because there are more of them per household. Figures published by Glasgow district council show that the areas of very high unemployment and poor amenities are the areas that will bear the brunt of this new tax. Only eight wards, mostly residential areas with low levels of unemployment, will gain under this new system by paying less tax. That is out of a total of 66 wards in Glasgow.
  What level of collection do the Government expect to see? We have heard estimates of 80 per cent., but under the present system 90 per cent, of rates are collected. However, 80 per cent, is a gross over-estimate of what local authorities can expect to receive. Evasion of the tax will be massive. Families will split up and youngsters will move out of the family home in order to avoid placing an even bigger onus on their parents to pay this tax. The only people guaranteed exemption from the tax are long-term hospital patients and prisoners. Perhaps we should all take a stand and refuse to pay the poll tax. If we did so and refused to pay the fines, we would swell the already overcrowded prisons to bursting point—if they have not already reached that point. At least the Government would be forced to have a look at the problems in the prisons if at nothing else.
  Judging by the clauses about the collective community charge, it is quite clear that the Bill has been hurriedly put together without consideration of the almost impossible burden which our local authorities will face. The amount of money that they will have to spend will prove to be completely under-estimated by the Government. When a Labour Government are returned at the next general election, perhaps all of us can reflect on this Bill and say that it was only a bad dream.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Hirst: I have not been impressed so far tonight by what I discern as synthetic indignation by the Opposition about the motion. The history of the use of the guillotine is worth considering in order to judge the assertions made by the Opposition that the Government are moving with haste to get this legislation through. The record for the number of Bills guillotined in any one session is held by the last Labour Government. They moved to impose a guillotine after far fewer sittings than this legislation. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and some of his Front Bench colleagues ought to have had regard to that.
  I am sympathetic to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the general principle of timetabling legislation. To anybody who used to earn a living on the basis of time spent in a job, it must come as a shock to come to this House and sit in a Standing Committee where it is possible to wait hour after hour for some minor amendment, often described as a probing amendment, when the purpose is simply to waste time and clock up hours of opposition. For that reason I have considerable sympathy for the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that one benefit of a timetable motion is that it concentrates the minds of all participants on the remaining clauses and schedules and obviates the time wasting that characterised the earlier part of this Standing Committee.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member is familiar with the Bill and knows that is says 75 times "as may be prescribed". It is right that the Opposition should put down probing amendments to try to find out from Ministers exactly what they intend to do under that phrase.
  Mr. Hirst: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is a pity that his memory seems to be so thin and that he has not consulted the Official Report. That shows that many of the interventions and speeches in Standing Committee were no more than a lot of time wasting. He makes the point that the Opposition tabled probing amendments, but the Official Report will help him look differently at the quality of some of the contributions. I can recall many occasions on which my hon. Friends on the Committee evinced their boredom about the irrelevance of the contributions made by some Opposition Members.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a probing amendment is meant to be tabled in order to find out the meaning and purpose of a Bill? Its purpose is not, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, to find out its own meaning.
  Mr. Hirst: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. The position is, perhaps, slightly worse than he described, because one Opposition probing amendment was accepted by the Government. I think that reveals the thinking of many Opposition Members.
  Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that one of our lengthy debates, in which he played a prominent part, dealt with an amendment that he tabled on help for sports clubs? He will remember that, following that lengthy debate, he tried to withdraw the amendment—which, in a sense, made the debate a total waste of time.
  Mr. Hirst: We have certainly set the scene for a jolly good discussion on this point. I intend to return to it later, to put firmly on the record the reasons why my hon. Friends followed that approach and why the actions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) were so injurious to the proper interests of sporting clubs.
  In their own words, the Opposition started out to wreck the Bill. The hon. Member for Cathcart admitted that, and in the early stages of our debates the conduct of Opposition Members confirmed it. I need not remind the House about the events on Thursday 18 December. During my relatively short time in the House, I had not before witnessed conduct such as that of one Opposition Member who insinuated himself into the Committee. It was appalling. It must be unprecedented for a Committee to be suspended three times because of such irresponsibility. If the hon. Member for Cathcart is as fair-minded as I believe him to be, he will agree that the whole purpose of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was to wreck the Bill by extra-parliamentary practices, as he had threatened to do.
  We do not need a timetable to extract an admission from the Opposition that they are basically clinging to a discredited system. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—his absence is a matter of great sadness, and we look forward to his return—said revealingly during the third Committee sitting that the Labour party had no definite policy on which way to go, but admitted that the system was discredited. Bearing that in mind, we might have expected Opposition Members to make some kind of revelation about the way that they proposed to fund local government expenditure.
  Mr. Home Robertson: We did.
  Mr. Hirst: I know that I did not attend all the sittings, but I listened during those that I did attend and there was certainly a great void in the official policy of the Opposition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to the confusions and contradictions in the admissions of the Labour Front Bench spokesman. I watched with some interest the way in which the brow of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) furrowed deeper and deeper as he learned of those contradictions so eloquently described by my hon. Friend.
  However, there are some things that Opposition Members did not or would not say. Notwithstanding whether the timetable motion is agreed to, I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee and on the Floor of the House for Opposition Members to answer some of the questions put to them in Committee, which they were singularly unprepared to answer. They shrugged off the fact that only 29 per cent, of people in Scotland pay full rates—
  Mr. Maxton: Seventy-nine per cent.
  Mr. Hirst: No, only 29 per cent, of people in Scotland pay full rates. After all the hours of debate in Committee and following the exhaustive examination that the hon. Gentleman asserted he had made of the Green Paper, if he is not now aware of that statistic, I despair.
  The Opposition shrugged off the fact that 750,000 people in Scotland who have an income make no contribution to local government expenditure.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hirst: The hon. Gentleman should consult the information available, which has been prepared over a long period. It is interesting that he chooses to take this opportunity to challenge something that he did not choose to challenge in Committee. I hope that he will consult the Official Report and the available information to clarify his mind. I recall fairly making that point in Committee.
  The Opposition shrugged off the fact that businesses in Scotland have no protection. Although under the statute they have the right to be consulted, in Strathclyde a rate was imposed before the business community was consulted. Even when they are consulted, they have little opportunity to influence the spending policies of local government—they are simply obliged to pay.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said in Committee that it was his belief that this legislation would enhance local accountability, Opposition Members disputed it. If a local authority finds that the community charge that it is obliged to levy upon its inhabitants rises because of a deliberate decision to carry out the democratic will of the local electorate to increase services, I believe that that will improve local accountability.
  I suspect that the colleagues of Labour Members serving in local government in Scotland are rather concerned that this measure will promote much greater interest among the public during local government elections. I believe that the political friends of the Labour party serving in Scottish local authorities will take due and proper note of that.
  A more significant matter, and one which I do not believe a timetable motion will necessarily resolve, is the reluctance of the alliance representative to spell out how its system of local income tax would operate. On Second Reading and in Committee I asked how the system would operate. I see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nodding.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman saw me shaking my head, and that is rather different.
  Mr. Hirst: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were shaking your head. I do not think for a moment that you share my despair at having failed to learn how the alliance proposes to introduce local income tax.
  It is fair to say that this afternoon the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) repeated his assertion that local income tax would be levied on ability to pay, and that therefore it would be a fairer system. It is difficult for me to accept that, as he has studiously declined to say how his party, if it were ever in government, would introduce such a system. We are left with his contention that the system would be fair, without knowing exactly how it would operate. Without challenge, he said that it was not his duty—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me earlier reproach one hon. Member for seeking to introduce matters that were not the subject of the Bill. It is fair for hon. Members to argue about the content of the Bill, but not to argue about matters not covered by the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the motion before the House.
  Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for making that point, of which I was aware. It is, however, fair to say that during the debates on clause I stand part and a series of amendments—
  Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the point that you just made to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst). He referred to my remarks this afternoon about local income tax. As you will recall, I made no such remarks this afternoon because, in my view, they would have been out of order.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is correct to say that in Committee the hon. Gentleman tabled a number of amendments requiring the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to consider local income tax. We frequently discussed the merits of that alternative system.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has underlined the difficulty facing the Chair. He has illustrated the dangers of allowing the debate to get away from the terms of the motion. I repeat that it is perfectly fair to argue about matters that are covered by the Bill as reasons why the motion should be accepted, or otherwise, but not to refer to matters that are not covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Hirst: If I have inadvertently forgotten what was previously discussed this afternoon, I apologise to the House. However, it was my recollection that local income tax was mentioned.
  In essence, the purpose of the legislation is to look at ways of financing of Scottish local government more fairly. I know that the different Opposition parties have different suggestions about that. The point that I should like to make now is relevant to the timetable motion and in the light of the discussions in Committee.
  Those hon. Members who have argued against the Government's proposals have overlooked one vital fact: however local government is financed—whether by rates, sales tax, community charge or local income tax—the sum and substance of the matter is that the lion's share of local government expenditure is, and will continue to be, financed by the Exchequer, to which all taxpayers will contribute in accordance with their ability to pay. That is the vital point, which was so often overlooked in the amendments tabled by alliance and Opposition Members in Committee.
  I have a special interest in this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said that his constituents were reckoned to do best out of the legislation. I have the invidious distinction that my constituents pay the highest average rates of any local authority in Scotland, and probably in the rest of Britain, with the exception of certain London boroughs. Many of my constituents are elderly people who live relatively modestly and for whom this legislation will be extremely important in helping them to continue living in the houses that they have occupied for so many years. It is sad when elderly widows and widowers are driven from their homes because they can no longer afford the burden of maintaining them because of their high rates bills. It is not unusual for people who live in relatively modest houses to pay £1,100 or £1,200 a year in rates. Clearly, that puts an exceptional burden on them.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend is making an important point, which not only relates to his constituency, but is of general application. Is it not an absolute disgrace that no member of the alliance parties is in the Chamber to hear him?
  Mr. Hirst: All the alliance representatives are absent. Given the number of Scottish seats that they represent, I should have thought that some of them would have been here this afternoon. Obviously, they will have to answer for themselves and explain their absence.
  Speaking on behalf of those whom I have tried, in a kindly way, to describe as little old widows, when I intervened in Committee about their plight, I was surprised at the way in which their interests were dismissed by some hon. Members on the Committee. It is curious that my constituency enjoys the lowest proportion of pensioner households, and that of the hon. Member for Cathcart has one of the highest—over 20 per cent. Therefore, I should have thought that he would have been acutely concerned, as I am, about those elderly people whose rates bill at the moment is proving so burdensome, and for whom this legislation will provide a great deal of relief.
  It is quite assuredly the case that the elderly person or the single-parent family, struggling to meet a rates bill, is very resentful of the fact that in the neighbouring house, and paying the same amount in rates, there may be three, four or even more people, each earning an income. Therefore, on the basis of ability to pay, that household would be better able to make a contribution to the costs of the local government.
  Perhaps the impression has been given this afternoon that the Committee stage was rather disagreeable and fruitless. I do not believe that. There have been rare moments of unanimity. The hon. Member for Cathcart, who raised a matter to which I shall come presently, was in Committee on the two occasions when we discussed the rating burden upon Scottish sports grounds. As he made a tendentious and unfair intervention earlier in the debate, I shall take the opportunity of placing clearly on the record exactly what happened in Committee. It is of considerable relevance to the timetable motion and also to the Report stage, on which occasion I hope that it will be possible to return to this matter.
  Concern about the rates that are levied on sports clubs in Scotland is so widespread, north and south of the border, that I imagine that you may have had some representations on that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Scottish amateur sports clubs pay substantially more in rates than their English counterparts. That has led to financial difficulties for some clubs and even threatened their future.
  Bearing in mind that Parliament has already laid down the powers by which local authorities may grant discretionary relief, with some reluctance, Committee members felt it necessary to move amendments to provide mandatory relief. History to that point suggested that, in general, local authorities in Scotland were unwilling to provide for discretionary relief to mitigate the rates burden and enable sports clubs to remain in existence.
  I cannot emphasise too much the importance of those clubs, especially when school sporting fixtures and arrangements have been disrupted by industrial action in schools. Therefore, amateur sports clubs play an increasing role. Bearing that in mind, several amendments were tabled in Committee—they were not probing, but substantive amendments—and were signed by Conservative as well as Opposition Members.
  In reply, the Minister made it clear that the technical definitions were inadequate, and I accept his advice. In Committee, Opposition Members referred again and again

  345
  to the fact that my technical definition of an amateur sports club was inadequate for those purposes. Those amendments put the point firmly and clearly to the Minister that all hon. Members felt that the spirit of the amendments had been supported by Labour, alliance and Conservative Members. The amendments would have provided mandatory relief.
  When the Minister advised me that there were problems on two major counts, I said that I was prepared to withdraw the amendments on the express understanding that, after the necessary consultations with ministerial colleagues, he would table Government amendments on Report to meet their spirit.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Exactly.
  Mr. Hirst: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports me.
  Bearing in mind that those amendments were not raised just to articulate a particular problem, but that they were designed to ensure a specific reaction, in the face of the Minister's advice that they were technically deficient, I believed that the proper course was to withdraw them but to make it clear that I should return to them on Report. Therefore, it was very sad that a Division was forced in Committee. Presumably, that will prevent me from tabling a similar amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am advised that that may prevent me from returning to the same point on Report. I was prepared to withdraw the amendments because I attached the highest importance to having some provision in the legislation to help Scottish sports clubs.
  A further point, which did not appear in our Committee discussions, was that the amendments as framed would grant relief from 1989–90 onwards. The position is more urgent than that. Without tabling new clauses, I could not provide relief more immediately, which is what I want. In view of what I have said today I hope that my ministerial colleagues can table amendments on Report, despite the timetable, to meet the spirit of my amendments.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is serious anxiety about this? I address my remarks to the Minister through the hon. Gentleman. For example, the modest Linlithgow cricket ground—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now matters which were the subject of amendments in Committee. We are debating a timetable motion. I understood that the hon. Gentleman invoked the debate on these issues only with reference to our procedures, rather than on the intrinsic merits of the amendments. In so far as the intervention has a bearing on the motion before the House, I shall allow it, but we are not here to debate the wisdom, or lack of it, of imposing rates on sports clubs.
  Mr. Dalyell: Many people in Scotland will not be too worried about our procedures, but they will be worried about the differences between the Linlithgow—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No matter what the people in Scotland may think, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have regard to the fact that I have a responsibility to ensure that the Standing Orders and procedures of the House are complied with.
  Mr. Dalyell: I simply reinforce the point that the contrast between the Linlithgow ground and the Worcester ground is typical of the sort of contrast that exists.
  Mr. Hirst: I welcome support, from whatever source, and I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman supports the spirit of the amendments that I proposed.
  Important matters in the Bill remain to be discussed. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said this afternoon about sufficient time being given to future sittings in Committee to facilitate a constructive, full discussion of these matters. I look forward to participating in them.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. David Lambie: I felt sorry for the Leader of the House when he moved the motion to curtail further debate, and I am sorry that he is not present now. He spoke in a vacuum as an English Member of Parliament, knowing nothing about conditions in Scotland. He said that he was reading a brief prepared by some young Milton in his Department. I fear that that young Milton, like the previous Milton, also knew nothing about conditions in Scotland. He may be an expert on England, but he knows nothing about Scotland.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I realised that the longer a Member is in the House nothing tones him up more than being sacked from the Front Bench. I have thoroughly enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speeches since he left the Front Bench. I remember when we used to ask him questions on industry and education when he was a Minister. He would not answer and, indeed, seldom spoke, but suddenly there is a reincarnation— sacked from the Government and facing a general election, he is back speaking in Parliament and I agree with many of his recent remarks, with the exception of those on Prestwick airport.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) also reminded me of the feeling that we always have before a general election, when Members who are fighting for their seats and know that they may be defeated suddenly begin to take an interest in local matters such as sports clubs. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is unworthy."] I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you saw the Channel 4 programme on Thursday night which surveyed marginal seats and dealt with the hon. Member's seat. Channel 4's public opinion poll found that the Labour candidate was ahead of the hon. Gentleman by 16 per cent, last week, so you will realise why the hon. Gentleman is trying to cover his ground now on sports clubs.
  Mr. Hirst rose—
  Mr. Lambie: I put it to the hon. Gentleman—this is where he made a serious error and let down sports clubs in Scotland—that no Minister gave an assurance that an amendment would be tabled on Report. I read the Official Report and the Minister said clearly that he was prepared to look at the arguments, but he never said that he would table an amendment to meet those arguments and the anomalies that the hon. Gentleman's amendment made apparent.
  Mr. Hirst: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that consultation is taking place between Department officials with a view to finding some sort of definition? I see that

  347
  as a hopeful sign. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? Does he also agree that it is unfair to suggest that the interests of Conservative Members in the plight of sports clubs is new-found? Does he recall the occasion when I went with him to a meeting of sports clubs as a representative from my party when there were very few from his party?
  Mr. Lambie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he has not answered my point. We can have all the consultations we want, but unless the Government are prepared to table an amendment on Report, the change will not be made. No matter what Scottish Conservative Members think or how they vote, if the Government put on a three-line Whip, Conservative Members will vote for Government policy and not for what Scottish Tory Members want. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance today that definite amendments will be submitted on Report to deal with this matter.
  There are many reasons for the guillotine, but the main reason is to get the Bill on the statute book before the general election. The Government want it, not to implement it but to use it in the political battle before the general election as something that the Tory Government have done for Scottish ratepayers. Considering the electorate's opinion in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and applying that across Scotland, it is clear that not one Minister on the Front Bench tonight will be returned at the general election. Even the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will not be returned, and nor will many Back Bench Members. Despite this camouflage of dealing with the rates, the people of Scotland will get rid of the Tories once and for all as public representatives in the House.
  What is wrong with the rating system in Scotland? That is the fundamental question with which we are dealing tonight. Under the Tory Government, the rate support grant has gradually decreased from 70 per cent, to about 56 per cent. In all probability, in a few weeks' time we shall have a new rate support grant formula which will show a further reduction in the percentage of relevant expenditure. The Scots continued with the revaluation of property in 1973 when the English stopped it. I blame some colleagues here and most colleagues in local government for that. Under this Bill we shall have a further revaluation in 1990. We are told by Ministers that the English will also have a revaluation in 1990, but I do not believe it.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under the Bill there will be a revaluation only for non-domestic property in 1990? Under the Labour party's policy there will be a total revaluation in 1990.
  Mr. Lambie: I accept that under the provisions of the Bill there will be a revaluation only of non-domestic property in 1990, but I am not concerned only about domestic ratepayers. I am also concerned about business ratepayers. I am concerned about every ratepayer in Scotland. We shall carry out another revaluation of industry, starting in Scotland in 1990. The Government have promised only that they may do it in England and Wales. The main reason for the Bill is that we have had a revaluation every five years in Scotland and the last two
  348
  caused such a revolt among Scottish ratepayers that the Government were forced to do something. That is why we are saddled with the Bill.
  What do English Members think will be the effect in England and Wales in 1990 if the Government carry out a revaluation and raise English property valuation levels from 1973 levels to 1990 levels? There was a revolution in Scotland over the five-year period. The Government will get more than a revolution in England if they bring 1973 property valuation levels to 1990 levels. The Government will not have a revaluation in 1990 and the English will not have a poll tax in 1990 because to introduce a poll tax the Government must first reintroduce the revaluation process. The Bill is a con. It is an attempt by the Tory Government to enhance their position in Scotland so as to retain the few seats that they have..
  The effects of the Bill will be felt by Scotland only from 1989 to 1992. The Bill will not be introduced immediately and over a period its effects will be reduced. I assure the House that after the general election I shall come back as a Labour Member of Parliament representing a constituency with a solid Labour vote. If, unfortunately, the people in the south-east vote to keep the Conservative Government in power, I shall be able to come back and say, as I have said on all valuation and rating issues since the end of 1970, that I told the Government that they would not be able to do what they intended to do.
  I am willing to bet that the Government will not introduce the poll tax if they win the next general election and certainly will not introduce the system proposed for Scotland in England and Wales. Even the people in the south will realise that the Government do not represent the people of the United Kingdom and will vote with the people from Wales, the north and Scotland. When we have a change of Government we can re-examine the system of valuation and rating so that we may be fair to all ratepayers, whether they be in the south of England or in the north of Scotland. This Bill will not help the Tory party or the ratepayers in Scotland.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am prepared to accept what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) had to say about his prospects of being supported by his electors. He is in a unique position. He is one of the few Opposition Members— if not the only one— who oppose the rating system. It became perfectly clear during our deliberations-which is why I saw no need to detain the Committee further—that the Labour party's purpose was to wreck the Bill; not to make any constructive representations but, rather, to act as an unthinking mouthpiece for COSLA which, sadly, briefed only the Opposition parties during the course of the Bill and organised secret liaisons with them. That was an unfortunate pattern of events.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's remark about COSLA is outrageous. He and all members of the Committee were given an opportunity to receive regular briefings from COSLA. If the hon. Gentleman did not avail himself of that opportunity, that is his problem, not COSLA's.
  Mr. Forsyth: I assume that the hon. Gentleman suffers from poor memory. He was in the Committee when I read extracts from COSLA's policy committee meeting minutes

  349
  about the regular meetings that it was to have with Opposition Members only and also the team of experts who would be on hand to brief them. After one or two sessions, the team of experts seemed to disappear and we were left with empty public seats that in no way reflected the hysteria and storm of protest that the Opposition whipped up and told us was growing in Scotland because of the Government's proposals to introduce a community charge.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Is it not a fact that COSLA experts left in despair because it became increasingly obvious that the Opposition could not understand half their amendments?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), in his normal courteous way, during the course of proceedings in Committee took considerable time to explain to hon. Gentlemen exactly what COSLA's intentions were. Whatever happened at the secret meetings with COSLA representatives, they obviously did not discuss what the amendments meant. No doubt they had other matters to discuss.
  The guillotine motion is not before time. We have had about 100 hours of debate. During the course of those debates—my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was unfair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)— we discovered that the Labour party was totally committed to the existing rating system, that it wished to extend it further to cover agricultural land and buildings, and that it wished to have regular revaluations in Scotland. That fact has been firmly placed on the record. We have also discovered that it is determined to destroy the Bill because it believes that it will help only minorities. During the debates, Labour Members made it clear that, although they are prepared to concede that it will help single-parent families, widows and pensioners, they consider them to be a small percentage of the community and, therefore, of no relevance in the generality of the system.
  I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). He suggested that the use of the guillotine is unfortunate because we have not had an opportunity to discuss matters of principle. We have discussed all the major elements of principle. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place it will have a swift passage. The principle of introducing a community charge and abolishing the rating system has been discussed ad nauseum with many amendments, discussions and opportunities to reiterate the view that Oppostion Members have taken— that the community charge is unfair.
  Mr. Henderson: Did not the Committee take over 25 hours to debate clause I, which contains the simple proposition that, from April 1990, domestic rates will be abolished? It is an important matter of principle certainly, but should it have required 25 hours to debate that straightforward proposition?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is being very unfair to the Opposition. They were in difficulty and had to decide in Committee what their policy was. I understand that the debates on clause I continued for almost 25 hours while their policy was handed down from on high. At first we were told in Committee that it was not their job to say
  350
  what their policy was, but later we had a clear enunciation of their policy— a clear commitment to the existing rating system and the status quo.
  Perhaps we ought to have more time to discuss how the Opposition's hints could be made into reality. There have been hints that the Opposition might favour capital values. However, when it was pointed out to them that there had been difficulties over the rating of sports clubs and other organisations in Scotland because of a method that depended upon capital values for assessing rateable values, they seemed to move away from it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, I agree with the Glasgow Herald that a disorganised Opposition have been operating on an opportunist basis. On the one hand, they have argued that they want to wreck the Bill; on the other hand, they have argued that they want to improve it. They have even tabled amendments whose meaning they did not understand.
  Mr. Maxton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. However, in Committee he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South to explain to him what the amendment standing in his name meant. If that is not wasting the time of the Committee, I do not know what is. Furthermore, last night in Committee the hon. Gentleman told us that his purpose was to wreck the Bill. These matters are on record and are beyond dispute. That is not what we expected in Committee. I expected to hear a closely argued demolition of the community charge. Also I expected to hear about the Opposition's alternatives for widows, single people and others in Scotland who are facing hardship because of:he rating system. We heard nothing about that. Instead, there was opposition for opposition's sake.
  As for alliance Members, who are not even in the Chamber, they, too, have been very noisy. I read in the newspapers and hear that they intend to fight the Bill to the bitter end. Obviously they are all fighting it somewhere else— presumably in Greenwich. It is something of a revelation to me to discover the difference between what the alliance say not just to each other but what appears in the newspapers and what they do in this place. It has been an enjoyable Committee stage, if only because it has reinforced the view of my hon. Friends that the Government are proceeding in a carefully thought out and constructive way towards meeting the problems that the people of Scotland have to face because of the rating system and that the Opposition have nothing to offer by way of an alternative.
  It is important that we should make progress and deal with the detailed matters, not just matters of principle, that still remain to be discussed. We know that there will be a community charge and a rebate system and that rates will be abolished. These are the main matters of substance that still have to be discussed. It is extraordinary that the Opposition, who made so much hay during the last rating revaluation, who were so critical and went out of their way to try to pin on the Government the blame for revaluation and for the undoubted hardship that is being caused because of the distortion of the rating system, should be so firmly attached to the principle of continuing with the policy of more of the same instead of discussing what can be done about it.
  Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair when he suggests that opposition to the revaluation was confined to one party. The problems that have been caused by revaluation in Scotland were spread over two Governments. I was a member of a joint deputation that included the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), now the Secretary of State for Defence, that met my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), the Minister of State, Scottish Office at that time, on the occasion of the first Scottish revaluation. Therfore, the opposition to revaluation in Scotland, when there was to be no revaluation in England and Wales, was on an all-party basis. Opposition was not confined to one party for electoral purposes.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that he is opposed to revaluation, because he opposes the rating system. Regrettably, the Labour party is committed to the rating system. We cannot have a credible rating system without revaluation. That is why the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to tell the House that there would be no poll tax, by which I assume he meant a community charge, in England because there could not possibly be a revaluation. I agree with him that a revaluation of domestic properties in England would cause hardship along the lines that we have experienced in Scotland. That is why I have every confidence that when this Government are once again returned to power after the next general election there will be a Bill to introduce a community charge in England, thereby abolishing the need for revaluation of domestic properties.
  The hon. Gentleman appears to be the champion of commercial ratepayers. He said that he was concerned about the revaluation of commercial premises in Scotland. I am prepared to accept his word, but I suggest that he should find himself another party. He is a member of the party that in Committee opposed the idea of limiting increases in commercial rates to the rate of inflation. His party's policy is to have regular commercial revaluations and, in addition, to remove all controls on local authority expenditure. It would take us back to the days when businesses had to face 30 or 40 per cent, rate increases that bore no relation to their ability to pay and to the days when widows and single parents were faced with huge rate increases. That would be done as a sop to those who hold the reins of power in local government.
  It is important that the Bill should reach the statute book as quickly as possible, not because I see the need for a speedy general election but because it is important to the electors of Scotland and to local government confidence. The Bill will restore power to local government at local level. Local government will be able to make its own decisions. It will remove all the machinery of controls on expenditure and make local government directly accountable to the electorate. It will be able to spend what it likes and to do what it likes, in the secure and certain knowledge that it will have to answer for it and explain the bill that the electors have to pay. It is that aspect of the Bill that appals the Labour party. The game is up. The Labour party will no longer be able to force a minority to pay.
  The Opposition are opposed to the guillotine motion because they wish the corrupt system from which they have benefited to continue. Under that corrupt system, local government is funded by a tiny minority while the majority are weaned on promises. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the guillotine motion. It will
  352
  enable us to get on with delivering local government out of the hands of the Labour party and into the hands of the people.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I believe that there should be more discussion of the Bill. It ill becomes the Government to impose a guillotine. As a member of the Committee, I felt that we were making reasonable progress. The Committee has reached clause 20. There is no reason to suggest that we are not making more progress on this Bill than we have made on other Bills.
  The Government have not provided answers to many of the questions that are worrying us. For the first time, young people between the ages of 18 and 21 will find themselves in court if they do not pay fines that are to be imposed by taxes that will be enforced by this Government. We do not know whether the Government will allow local authorities to recover fines through the deplorable sheriff warrant system that we have in Scotland. A precedent will be created. The Minister, in Committee and on Second Reading, did not answer that. For example, in a household of five or six people, four may be paying the community tax. What will happen if the sheriff officers come in? It is the law in Scotland that sheriff officers can take possession of and put up for pointing any item in the household, regardless of whom it belongs to. It may be an item borrowed from a next-door neighbour, but that could still be removed from the premises and sold to recover the debt.
  It would not be fair if all members of a family, with the exception of one, paid their taxes, but that one individual brought about a situation in which the sheriffs officer was called in and the whole family's property was jeopardised by that one person. If the Minister intends to bring in this type of legislation he should tell us what will happen in those situations. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to tell us that people in Scotland welcome the legislation, but it is our duty, in Committee, to go into the matter in depth and let the people of Scotland know that everything will not be in apple pie order as the hon. Gentleman tries to make out. Regardless of whether the legislation is carried, the local authorities and people of Scotland will still reject the policies of the Thatcher Government and the administration of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should not kid himself that the legislation will get the Tories off the hook in Scotland. More and more people will vote Labour at future local elections.
  Mr. Henderson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to bet whether there will ever be a Labour councillor in northeast Fife, or whether the Labour candidate in north-east Fife will get a higher percentage of the vote than the Tory candidate in his constituency?
  Mr. Martin: I do not know what goes on in the part of Fife that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but in Glasgow, as he knows full well, the Tory party is suffering-not only because of the campaigns that we have waged in Glasgow, but because of the policies of the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which are causing a great deal of damage to the Tory party. Traditional Tory party areas are losing seats all over the place in local government.

  353
  In Committee, the Minister has not given us a full explanation of the matters that were discussed yesterday. We do not have a full explanation as to who the so-called responsible person will be that the registering officer will designate. He will be required to give information for the register on each individual in that household. We are told that, if the wrong information is given, that could lead to the person being fined, or if that person refuses to give information, measures will be taken against him.
  In many cities in Scotland people live in bedsit accommodation, not as a family but as individuals who pool money to pay the rent. They have no connection except that they stay at the same address. They are not living as a family. The Minister has not given us an explanation of that.
  My fear—our fears have not been allayed—is that elderly people may be harassed when registration officers call to ask questions. If a young person is not paying a community tax, questions will be put, in many cases, to elderly parents, such as, "Where is your son? When was the last time you saw him? When was he last in the house? Does he visit?" All those questions may worry a person who is elderly, in had health or frightened of authority. We have not been told how people's rights will be safeguarded when the registration officer comes to the door. We should be entitled to more consideration.
  I do not accept what the hon. Member for Stirling says—that, because the Tories have come up with a poll tax, we should have something to put in its place. If the Tories come up with legislation that I do not like, I am entitled to oppose it. I do not have to have anything else to put in its place.
  The Tories are abolishing the rates system. Although it has many faults, the rating system is better than what the Tories are proposing. They are introducing a poll tax, and taxing young people who stay with their parents. They are taxing big families, people in communities like my own and in places such as Possilpark, Springburn, where unemployment is very high, and Denison, where young families are striving to make a living. It ill becomes the hon. Member for Stirling to say that we should be putting something in its place. If we cannot find something better than a poll tax, we should be quiet. The rating system is far better than what the Government propose.
  6.18 pm
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: Since I have been in the House I have been involved in about 30 Standing Committees. This is probably the worst Opposition that I have ever experienced on any Standing Committee. It was tragic. Good government and good legislation require good opposition. In this case, the Opposition were found wanting. They had only two amendments accepted; one was a probing amendment and the other they did not know the meaning of. One paltry argument followed the other.
  Probing amendments were frequently withdrawn as Opposition Members failed to sustain a case, as they fail to sustain so many cases. That served to highlight the smugness and arrogance of Labour Members, who did not do their homework and believed that no change was OK. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was the first string in this Committee. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was the second string. In the 16th century, some Spanish ladies used to parade with apes to enhance their rather dubious charms.
  354
  Those of us who had to listen to that deadly duo find the analogy quite appropriate. As for the contribution of the alliance, none of whom are present, I was reminded of an old section of the Reader's Digest, which said that it pays to increase your word power. It did not increase our knowledge.
  The Bill has been more than justified by the Ministers in charge and, despite the Opposition, it has had a good airing. That augurs well for a future Bill for England, which will be introduced in the new session. The test that was proposed for the Bill is its fairness, simplicity and accountability. Fairness is probably the first principle.
  The burden of rates has fallen on too small a section of Scottish society. The Opposition would have us believe that the burden can be borne lightly, thus relieving non-payers. Is that the truth, however? Far too many of my constituents wrote far too many letters contradicting that view—there were 2,000 a week at its height. They are not rich. Many are elderly with admittedly biggish houses which have been family houses and which they are reluctant to leave because of happy memories. Are they to be relocated? Many have very little in the bank—sometimes as little as £500 or £600, but enough to attract no benefits, and some pay more than £1,000 a year in rates.
  Those who advance the pathetic and curious argument that all who live in "big houses" are loaded should come to the more genteel parts of my constituency, such as Gourock, where they will see that genteel penury is no more attractive than the penury found in the most deprived areas. By paying rates of such magnitude, those people supported families in other areas who received many state benefits and enjoyed a rate-free existence, but they had to penny-pinch and save. In Committee we got nothing but the politics of envy and the size of people's houses from the Opposition. Such arguments do not pass the test of fairness.
  The community charge would redistribute the burden. Of course some people will pay for the first time, but they will pay the equivalent of a packet of cigarettes a week for street lighting, dustbin collection, street cleaning, libraries, burial grounds, roads, sewers and clean water. That sounds like a bargain. Why should they not pay? It is a fair principle.,Naturally, many better-off people may benefit, but bearing in mind the other burdens of taxation that are laid upon them, why not?
  We should all attempt to contribute something to our society. It is a principle. Despite what the Labour party tried to tell us in Committee, the Scottish people are highly principled. For those who are not, perhaps accountability may for the first time impinge on their consciences. Perhaps then, local councils, which are mostly controlled by Labour, would not be able to use special bribery status areas quite as freely as they can at the moment to boost their electoral hopes.
  Although the community charge is not a poll tax arid therefore not a tax on the right to vote—there will be no direct connection with the right to vote—the connection may be established in a different way. It may have a direct bearing on the way in which votes are cast in future. Perhaps that, above all, is why the Opposition just do not like the Bill.
  Strangely enough, the two main principles were disposed of relatively quickly in Committee, but hours of false outrage were expended on methods of collection. There were wild accusations about a betrayal of human rights. The whole nasty gamut of rhetoric emerged and

  355
  fizzled out, but not before the Opposition were rowing among themselves on a point of principle. Victory did not go to the Front Bench, but to an elder statesman who is laying down the burden at the next election.
  It seems that I am restricted by time, but I have one more thing to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who has just left the Chamber. We have heard of the proposals being made at the expense of Glasgow. Last weekend, there were five symphony concerts and three new restaurants opened. There is a healthy economy in Glasgow. Surely somebody must be benefiting. We should hear a bit more about areas such as mine which are not as well served as Glasgow and which have been milked dry by Glasgow for years. It is time that the balance was redressed, and I believe that the Bill can do that.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: My constituency will not benefit from the Bill. The figures show that all six wards within the Glasgow district will be worse off. In my written evidence in response to the Green Paper, I reckoned that between £8 million and £12 million would be taken out of my area's purchasing power.
  We should be blunt about it. The Bill was born out of the panic which set into Scottish Toryism after the 1985 revaluation. It owes more to the plight of the Scottish Tory party than it does to reducing the difficulties of Scottish ratepayers. The poll tax being proposed will be no more progressive than the present rating system, with all its disadvantages. It certainly will not produce greater accountability because 80 per cent. of local authority revenue will be determined by the Government. It most certainly will not iron out the rating and valuation disparities between Scotland and England about which many of us received letters during the 1985 revaluation. I do not think that it will last because it lacks the consensus that is necessary for any system of local government finance.
  I have listened to Ministers talk about this so-called radical system. The idea of a poll tax is so old that this dumb lot think that it is a novel means of taxation. I give the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) full marks. He laboured away in the House of Commons Library on his wee pamphlet, "A Case for a Poll Tax" and the desperate men on the Government Front Bench were so lacking in ideas of their own that they adopted it. They have been talking about reforming the rating system for the past 17 years. The right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was talking about it in 1970 when I fought him as a Labour and Co-operative candidate. He was a longer serving Secretary of State for Scotland than most, but he did nothing to introduce legislation on the subject. It is the Conservatives who have set the agenda for rating reform.
  I have been guillotined in this debate, so my final point is that the Government have a way of putting the most awkward things at the end of a Bill. I want more time to discuss the new revenue support grant, which is to replace rate support grant, and what it means in terms of the finance available to local authorities. Business men in England were asked by the Department of the Environment to comment on the Green Paper and the national non-domestic rate which is proposed. They expressed the fear that it might end up as another source
  356
  of finance for the Government, rather like the road fund licence. Thus business men could contribute to the non-domestic rate while the Treasury filches the money.
  With this Bill, Scotland is being asked to pay a heavy price to save a dwindling number of Conservative Members and Ministers who are on their way out anyway.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: This has not been a pleasant debate or one which has reflected much credit on the House. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) reads her speech, as no doubt she will, she will regret some of her opening remarks. We extend a certain traditional courtesy to our colleagues in the House, irrespective of party, but I think that she has gone some way to forfeiting that right in the future.
  A 26-minute speech from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) did not greatly improve the tenor of the argument or the quality of life of any of us, but I suppose that we must put up with that.
  I express thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and all the other Labour Members who have worked extremely hard on this Bill in Committee and had to put up with a great deal.
  Many sour comments have been made during the debate and in Committee. If the Bill is such a triumph for Ministers—many splendid speeches have been made and much propaganda has been propagated by the Government in Committee—why are we faced with a guillotine? I can only assume that it is because Conservative Members have had to spend many hours listening to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. That is an occupation that lacks inspirational content.
  I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was mentioned in the columns of The Scotsman the other day, praising the efforts and the effectiveness of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. That uncharacteristically generous and balanced judgment arose because he was credited with certain remarks of mine. However, today, an apology appeared in The Scotsman. I understood and appreciated that those remarks were unintentionally attributed to the Under-Secretary of State but I recommend that precedent to him. If he followed it he would improve the quality of his output in future.
  The management of the Bill, about which I feel strongly, has been mistaken and at times offensive. There has been a great deal of indecent haste, and there is a feeling that from the beginning the Government have expected there to be a guillotine, have been reconciled to one and have been prepared to force the Bill through in the minimum of time and with the minimum of effort. The whole thing has been extraordinary.
  The questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) cry out to be answered, but they have not been. Why does the Bill exist? Why have the Government suddenly abandoned their considered position? Why have they betrayed the work that has been done by Conservative Governments over many years on the problems of the rating system? The record confirms what many hon. Members have long guessed—that the Bill arose because of arguments of expediency, because of political opportunism and because of a fear about a rapid deterioration in the Tories' electoral

  357
  position in Scotland. That is not the basis for a sensible, far-reaching and significant reform of local government structure.
  The House will remember—it has already been mentioned—that a Green Paper was published in 1981. We do not hear much about the Green Paper because it addressed itself to the arguments about a poll tax. It made the case against the poll tax extremely persuasively. That must be something of an embarrassment to the Government.
  In August 1983 the present Administration produced their own White Paper. That White Paper contained the Government's decision that the rating system was fundamentally sound and that the alternatives should be rejected. The volte face, the climb down, is not an issue of principle, but, I repeat, a surrender to expediency.
  The Secretary of State, who inherited that solution, is probably embarrassed. However, he has the admirable discipline of a trained advocate and presents a bad case without flinching.
  The Leader of the House made no effort to justify what he was laying before the House. He did not suggest that there was a filibuster. He did not say that the guillotine was necessary for certain reasons. He said, in effect, that the Government had decided to have a guillotine and that it suited their convenience. That is not an impressive or a compelling argument for the motion.
  It is easy to be cynical. It may well be that the arguments against a guillotine are no more than ritual rage and fury and that the Opposition are simply doing what the Opposition must do. Personally, I have no enthusiasm for guillotines. I have been a Labour Front Bench spokesman for five years. During that time—the Minister may take this as a compliment—there have been many highly contentious Bills. We have had the entire gamut of the war between local and central Government appearing in statutory form for consideration. However, during those five years we have had only one guillotine on a Scottish Bill.
  I take no particular pride in guillotines. They are not some sort of machismo badge that the Opposition should strike and count at the end of every year to see what they have achieved. That is a ludicrous proposition. However, a guillotine in this case was inevitable because of the way in which the Government set about their business. There was a cynical clocking up of the hours.
  The Leader of the House delicately said that the motion was not quite unprecedented, and he produced an example from a far distant place and a far different legislative subject. I have never served on the Committee of a Bill that has been guillotined, and I am a battle-scared veteran of Committee stages of Scottish Bills. I have never known a sittings motion that started off with double banking on day one, and on day two we met again at 9 o'clock. I cannot remember a Bill in which there has been so little interest in any sort of constructive debate.
  I did not expect Ministers to give concessions on essential matters of principle which struck at the heart of the scheme. I recognise that they are ghirled to it and that they are thrawn and obstinately committed to this scheme for reasons that I believe are deeply mistaken.
  It was always possible to have an intelligent, flexible and sensible approach at another tier, but I cannot remember any legislation where there has been more alarm, concern and anxiety about the practicalities, the nuts and bolts, how the scheme will operate and whether
  358
  it can be operated. That conies not just from COSLA and local Labour councils, but from almost everyone who has expertise and conviction in this sector who has taken the trouble to consider the possibilities and to make comments and points about the legislation. We have had nothing from the Conservative party.
  I was astonished at the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who brought forward a quite extraordinary doctrine. She suggested that the effectiveness of an Opposition was judged by the number of concessions made by the Government. If that is the way in which she judges the effectiveness of an Opposition, she may have an unhappy time when she is on the Opposition Benches. I know the hon. Lady well enough to know that she will pop up again, although I think that her chances locally are distinctly gloomy. I asked the House to look at that yardstick that was put forward, but it should agree that. it hardly merits serious consideration.
  The Government were determined to push the Bill through. They were determined to have as little delay arid as little in the way of debate as they could get away with. The Leader of the House had to come forward and argue a case, almost by default, on that basis.
  I have listened to the speeches this evening and I have not heard anything to change my mind on that. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made a blistering attack. That attack was a sign of shining ability that no doubt persuaded other Conservative Members that he should return to the Back Benches. I was not impressed.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Opposition's tactics is correct—that they wish to be constructive and deal with technical points—why did they spend 25 hours on clause 1?
  Mr. Dewar: The Leader of the House made the point that a good deal of progress had been made. We are at clause 20. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) suggested that clause 1 was a simple matter. That may be the view of a simple mind. However, the clause strikes at the heart of a fundamental argument about the way in which we organise local government finance.
  The truth is that we are considering a political gesture. This measure must go on the statute book. It will be borne like a talisman into battle in areas like Pentlands, Edinburgh, South and Eastwood to try to rally the Tory faithful and see the Conservative party through the dark days.
  We object fundamentally to the proposed scheme. It is unrelated to the ability to pay. It will undoubtedly bring about a substantial switch in the contributions made and the percentages that areas give to local taxation between the more prosperous and the less prosperous.
  I have no doubt that there are some attractive arguments for the scheme. I am certainly riot one of those who would sweep aside the problems of people such as the widow to whom the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred. One must look at the balance of social justice that lies behind the scheme.
  Let me give a warning—this is the only point that I shall mention in substance—to those who have calculated what their community charges might be arid compared them with their current rates bills. One can hear the cash registers ringing as they rush to support the

  359
  scheme. They should take a longer view, even if personal financial advantage is to be the way in which to judge something as far-reaching as this.
  The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made a virtue of the fact that industry and commerce will be tied to the retail prices index, which means that the buoyancy revenue will fall on what was once the domestic ratepayer but is not the payer of the community charge. The hon. Gentleman grins with delight because he sees the narrow political advantage in that. However, he does not realise that many things could happen, such as new section duties, or the—21 million that the administration of this scheme will cost local government, or wage settlements funded at only 50 per cent. with the rest to come from rates. Instead of these additions being spread across the board, they will all fall upon the community charge. The comforting gap that the people in Pentlands, Eastwood and Strathkelvin and Bearsden think will be there for all time will suddenly start closing with alarming rapidity.
  The gearing is vicious, and the community charge will start rising fast, not because of profligacy, irresponsibility or Socialist policies, but because of the escalator built into the scheme. I warn the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, if he survives the next election—who am I to make a judgment on that?—that in a few years' time the widows about whom he is concerned now will not be thanking him for the community charge because in their eyes it will be becoming the monster that it is in ours now.
  There is every reason for looking sceptically at and properly debating this Bill. There is the administrative nightmare with which we shall be faced when this incredible and unworkable scheme, which has been criticised from almost every side, is put into operation. There are the problems of second homes, hostels, students, collection, diligence and the register. These points have not been properly discussed because of the way in which the Government have set about their business.
  As most of my hon. Friends would concede, I have considerable respect for the Committee procedure. Committees can be extremely valuable and productive. I look back with particular pleasure on a number of Committees, some of which I have shared with Conservative Members. This appears to have been rather an arid Committee, because of the approach taken by the Government, who have seen the Committee merely as a irritating procedural exercise that has to be completed. The motion shows no respect for the procedures of the House, and it has set, or threatens to set, some unpalatable precedents that Conservative Members may regret when, within a few short months, they find themselves on the Opposition Benches. It would be much more sensible if the Secretary of State would tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that he is scrapping the guillotine motion and going back to a proper consideration of the Bill. That consideration should be done with flexibility, honesty and openness of mind, because that would produce better legislation.
  6.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The various Opposition parties have sought to convey fury at the timetable motion that the House is being asked to accept. That sound and fury would have been a bit more convincing if, for the greater part of the
  360
  debate, there had been more than a dozen Scottish Labour Members in the Chamber. The fact that more than two thirds of Scottish Labour Members have failed to take any part, even by their presence, in the debate cannot be reconciled with the argument that this is a constitutional outrage. In addition, apart from the past five minutes, the Scottish National party has not been present for the debate and the Liberal party in Scotland has had no presence. Its sole contribution was the speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who serves on
  the Committee.
  Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an honest man. Surely he will admit that on ritualistic occasions such as this, the last thing that Members of Parliament want to do is spend time listening to other Members of Parliament going on.
  Mr. Rifkind: That is a most extraordinary admission from the hon. Member. His party has characterised the motion as a constitutional outrage, but so uninterested are they in it that not one of their members, with the solitary exception of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who graced us with his presence for five minutes. has thought it appropriate to be present on this occasion. If the people of Scotland could see the absence of interest by the Opposition parties in this debate they would come to a clear conclusion.
  The House will be reminded of the remark on a previous occasion by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is Opposition Front Bench spokesman on trade and industry, during a debate on a similar motion during the last Labour Government:
  "There is a growing conviction that to make too much fuss about a timetable is indulging in a certain amount of hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 162.]
  When the Leader of the House said last week that there would be a timetable motion, we got an indignant response from the two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in Committee. Such was their indignation that they thought it appropriate to issue a joint statement, which was reported in the press. They protested that the Opposition had not attempted deliberately to delay the Bill. However, they had "argued forcibly".
  I am sure that a number of my hon. Friends will have consulted the proceedings in Committee to see what this forcible argument amounted to. For example, they will have seen the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) when he introduced his amendment No. 41. He said:
  "I hope that the Minister understands the words on the amendment paper or that his advisers can tell him what they mean, because I have no idea. Can the Minister give me an explanation?"[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 330.]
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) the other Opposition spokesman, moved amendment No. 118, provided for the Opposition by COSLA. After explaining COSLA's views, he said:
  "I confess that I do not understand that."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 22 January 1987; c. 584.]
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) was in a slightly more difficult position. At least the two hon. Gentleman could vote for their amendments, because

  361
  they knew about them. He found, to his discomfiture, that he had no awareness at least one amendment on which his name appeared. He informed his colleagues:
  "I have not been consulted about the matter and I am getting a wee bit tired of being the odd man out being totally misunderstood when I talk about an amendment."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 29 January 1987; c. 742.]
  I am bound to say to the House—
  Mr. George Foulkes: Not hound.
  Mr. Rilkind: Well, I am going to say it.
  I must say to the House that it may be contributions of this fluency from the Opposition that explain the conclusion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Committee had been a little arid. He suggested that that was the Government's fault, but let us consider not the Government's view or the Opposition's view of whose responsibility it is, but that of the Scottish press. He will know that that is not a great friend of the Conservative party or the Government.
  I want to start with an independent newspaper; the Glasgow Herald, which, under the heading "Weak
  opposition" stated:
  "The results so far have been undramatic, though there was some pointless backbench filibustering at the end of the year. The promised major offensive has failed to materialise."
  The report continued:
  "The result is another piece of ineffectual opposition."
  I appreciate that Opposition Members may not consider that to be a very Socialist paper and may say, "Well, what would you expect the Glasgow Herald to say?" Let us consider what the Scottish Daily Record said. Opposition Members will agree that that newspaper is normally friendly to the Labour party cause. That paper stated:
  "But Labour's promise to give rates reform a rough ride has never really materialised."
  Mr. Foulkes: What about the Sunday Post?
  Mr. Rifkind: I could quote from the Sunday Post, but I want to refer to a newspaper which is at least as much in tune with the Labour party as the Scottish Daily Record. I want to refer to the Glasgow Evening Times. What did that paper say about the party which it normally supports?
  Under the heading "Pathetic opposition" it stated:
  "Scottish Labour MPs win no plaudits for their opposition to the Bill.
  The problem for the Labour Party is that it has chosen to take the coward's approach on the question of rates.
  It wants to change the system but does not know what to replace it with.
  It suits their political purposes to have the rates loaded unfairly in favour of their own supporters."
  The report concluded:
  "But the Labour opposition to the Bill has been pathetic.
  The party which glories and delights in its overwhelming lead in the Scottish opinion polls should perform better on such crucial issues."
  If the debate in Committee has been arid, who is responsible for that aridity?
  I want to refer to yet another Left-wing journal which has chosen to comment on the Committee's proceedings and the attitude of the Labour party. This a magazine entitled Radical Scotland—not exactly the most avid supporter of Conservative policy. In its latest issue, the journal states:
  "Labour…have been loud in their condemnation of the Tory proposals, but have not come forward with any positive proposals themselves for any change, even minor, to local
  362
  government funding. (Can it really be perfect?) They thereby lay themselves open to Tory jibes of 'defending the status quo', and appearing to become the party of reaction."
  The report continues by claiming—this is perhaps the gem of them all—
  "It seems that a recent move within Labour's ranks for positive proposals was knocked hack (from the top) on the grounds that 'if we produce anything, it will just get attacked'."
  I like to be a fair man on these occasions. I know perfectly well that it would be unreasonable for me to expect the Opposition or the country to accept the Conservative party's views of the Labour party's performance. However, when the Daily Record, the Glasgow Evening Times and Radical Scotland have reported in such unequivocal terms, we are entitled to say that the Labour party has not provided any opposition to the Bill because it does not know how to do so.
  I recollect that on Second Reading, two delegations came to the House to lobby Members. One was from the Federation of Scottish Ratepayers. That delegation came to lobby in favour of the Bill and its members paid their own fares down. The other delegation came from the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities, which has the appearance of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Labour party. It appeared then and today and we are entitled to assume, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that they had their fares paid by Scottish ratepayers.
  Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that COSLA's composition is the result of the decision of the Scottish electorate, and that he has led his party to the worst set of local election results in political history?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues failed to answer the correct point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In its approach to the Bill, COSLA has sought to establish a private relationship with the Labour party and with Opposition parties. Instead of seeing its obligation to service the needs of all Members of Parliament, it has sought to be exclusive in the way that I have described.
  The Bill is a radical and reforming measure, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was kind enough to admit by quoting my earlier comments. He suggested that it was unacceptable because it resulted in everyone having to contribute to the costs of local government. He did not explain, what he should have realised, that all pay towards the costs of central Government. Everyone pays income tax or indirect taxes or, at the very least, VAT and other forms of indirect taxation. However, a substantial proportion of the adult population do not pay a penny towards the costs of local authorities. The hon. Member for East Lothian, a spokesman for the Labour party, did not seem to be aware that in Scotland about 750,000 Scottish adults who are not spouses or unemployed, the vast majority of whom are earning and pay income tax to central Government, do not under the present system pay a penny in contributions to local government.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian and his colleagues must ask why they are defending a system which means that such people, many of whom earn more than old-age pensioners, do not pay a penny towards the rates raised by local authorities, while pensioners and others on low incomes who happen to be householders sometimes make substantial contributions.

  363
  The Labour party was correct to rule out local income tax, but by doing so it has emphasised what we have emphasised—that the only alternative to a discredited rating system is the community charge as proposed in the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt that, although it is impossible to achieve a perfect system of taxation, a system based on accountability, on the assumption that all adults who benefit from local authority services should make a contribution to the cost of those services, and which takes into account the ability to pay by a system which will provide up to 80 per cent. rebates for those who require it, should commend itself to the House. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  Question put:-
  The House divided: Ayes, 287 Noes 187.

  Division No. 89]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Corrie, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Critchley, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Crouch, David

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Robert

  Benyon, William

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Evennett, David

  Blackburn, John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

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

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brinton, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browne, John

  Galley, Roy

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Budgen, Nick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gorst, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hayes, J.

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

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Henderson, Barry

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hickmet, Richard

  Colvin. Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  364

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hill, James

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Hirst, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Holt, Richard

  Pollock, Alexander

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Powley, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jackson, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Jessel, Toby

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Raffan, Keith

  Key, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Renton, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knox, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Latham, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rost, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ryder, Richard

  Lester, Jim

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lightbown, David

  St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lilley, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maclean, David John

  Speed, Keith

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Spencer, Derek

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

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Maples, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Antony

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Mudd, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Michael

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Newton, Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steven

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Walters, Dennis

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Ward, John

  365

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wood, Timothy

  Watson, John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Watts, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wheeler, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Foulkes, George

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Anderson, Donald

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, W. E.

  Ashton, Joe

  George, Bruce

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Gould, Bryan

  Beith, A. J.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Blair, Anthony

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Haynes, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  John, Brynmor

  Canavan, Dennis

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cartwright, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clarke, Thomas

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Clay, Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Lambie, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lamond, James

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cohen, Harry

  Leighton, Ronald

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Loyden, Edward

  Corbett, Robin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Craigen, J. M.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregot

  Crowther, Stan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, Michael

  Dixon, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Douglas, Dick

  Meacher, Michael

  Dubs, Alfred

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Nellist, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Forrester, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foster, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  366

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

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

  Park, George

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Parry, Robert

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

  Patchett, Terry

  Snape, Peter

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Soley, Clive

  Pike, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Gavin

  Redmond, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, George

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Tinn, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Wainwright, R.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wareing, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Gordon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Winnick, David

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Tony Lloyd.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 19th February 1987.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 19th February may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 20th February.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall he brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on first allotted day
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others);

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20
  368
  (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed to on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Petroleum Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Petroleum Bill
  New clause 1

    GRANTS FOR ABANDONMENT PROGRAMMES
    "The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Treasury, make grants to a person or persons who have submitted a programme under section 1 and which has been approved or revised under sections 4 and 6 for the purposes of implementing the programme.'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    In Committee, we were reminded of just how much money in tax revenue has been obtained from the North sea since 1979. It was a staggering £352·4 billion, obtained by way of direct taxes from North sea oil, the largest fiscal windfall in modern British history—and the Government have been the beneficiaries of it.
    At the same time we have become increasingly aware that a Government in the mid-1990s will begin to face the problem of repaying a significant proportion of those revenues as part and parcel of relief against the cost of abandonment. It is a sobering thought that although Governments have enjoyed this enormous fiscal windfall, the Government of the mid-1990s will not only have less revenue from the North sea—because production will have declined by at least 1 million barrels a day and because of the probable lower average oil price—but, as the abandonment programme gets under way and the costs begin to come in, it is likely that the Government will have to pay a very large proportion, possibly up to 85 per cent., of the cost of abandonment. Therefore, we are not discussing matters of marginal significance; we are talking about very considerable items of expenditure and tax relief at a time when the revenues which created the development and which have been enjoyed by this Government will be declining both in real terms and in terms of offsetting the cost of abandonment by means of tax relief.
    I make no apology, therefore, for endeavouring by means of this new clause to open up debate about the fiscal arrangements that will prevail and to put forward the suggestion that we consider a grant structure as much as a tax relief system. As the Minister will recall, we considered whether the Government, even at this stage, knowing what lies ahead, should not hypothecate in some form or other existing revenue to cover future costs. After all, the Government will urge the oil industry to prepare for this eventuality in its accounting and even to put money into trust funds of some kind in advance of abandonment programmes. The Government, however, have not done this, and I do not suppose that they will hypothecate any percentage of current oil revenues from the North sea to cover the costs that a future Government must face.
    We could not, although we wanted to, put down an amendment to that effect because it was inhibited by the scope of the financial resolution, so we decided to raise the issue and open up for debate methods of meeting these enormous costs in the coming decade, costs that will fall on the Government and taxpayer more than on the industry itself.
    370
    The reason why we should look at a grant system instead of tax relief is that the work of Professor Kemp showed that the tax relief system could be capricious. Abandonment costs in different fields and installations could attract tax relief of varying amounts, from 35 per cent. to 85 per cent. Such a capricious and unpredictable incidence of relief could bring confusion to the development of abandonment programmes. We identified some of the problems in Committee, and we return to the argument now in a rather different form by proposing in this new clause that the Secretary of State should have power to make grants rather than give tax relief.
    One of the most valuable things that the Minister can do when he replies is to clarify the tax position. It would be very useful for everyone, particularly those outside the House, to have a clear statement from the Minister about the tax position. As I understand it, there would be three forms of tax relief on abandonment: against corporation tax, in relation to petroleum revenue tax, and in relation to royalty payments. When he replies, will the Minister make it absolutely clear what these reliefs are and what the existing position is? Could the whole of any abandonment cost be offset against PRT? Over what period could these costs be set against the various taxes? From the analysis carried out by Professor Kemp and from the informal discussions that other hon. Members and I have had with people in the oil industry, we know that under existing rules a company may, over the life of a field, pay PRT at an average rate of, say, 53 per cent., but receive little or no PRT relief on abandonment because of the incidence of the oil allowances. It is particularly in relation to PRT that I hope the Minister will help the House in clarifying the position.
    Given the possibility that tax relief can be capricious and unpredictable and can vary widely, we believe that there is a case for considering a grant system as a better alternative for covering the cost of abandonment. The Minister and his Department have done some work on this and the Norwegians went into this in considerable detail. I have a considered report by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Customs on the whole question of the law regarding allocation of costs of removal of installation and tax. After the issue had been considered at some length, the report, on page 30, concluded:
    "To utilise the tax system as a mechanism to allocate the removal costs between the public and the oil companies is unnecessarily complicated. Such a procedure would weaken the financial control with the removal, hereunder the cost-consciousness of the companies".
    It decided that it would be far better to introduce some form of grant structure than to meet the cost by way of relief from taxation already paid.
    The Norwegian system is that the companies would create a separate account for a removal project. The cost would then be clearly identified and the State would pay its share as the expenses were incurred during the course of the abandonment programme. The idea is to have a grant relating to the overall payment of tax made by a company on a particular field.
    These are interesting and serious proposals. All that we are proposing in new clause 1 is to put into place the opportunity and power for the Secretary of State to do this. None of us knows how it will work out. We cannot be sure how large abandonment costs will be—at their gross it is estimated that they could be as high as £6 billion—but we assume that, with some form of partial

    371
    removal, we are talking of a total of £3 billion to £4 billion. If the State has to pay back 85 per cent. in tax relief in the mid-1990s, at a time of declining oil revenues, there is a strong case for considering the alternative method of covering the costs. That is the conclusion of the Norwegians, having studied the matter carefully. We should not close the door on that option. That is why we have proposed new clause 1.
    When we have determined the legislative framework for abandonment programmes, the next and most urgent task will be to create the financial framework for those programmes. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make a clear statement on the existing tax position by indicating what reliefs are available and the period over which they can offset the cost of abandonment. Does the Minister believe, as everyone outside does, that the tax relief system has a capricious character which could lead to considerable variations in the payment of tax relief on abandonment costs? Will the Minister at least consider the option of a grant structure if the system of tax relief is complicated and in some cases inequitable?
    Before the Norwegians made their law, they consulted the major oil companies operating in the Norwegian North sea. Some of those companies also operate in our North sea. The oil companies expressed a preference for a grant structure. There are divided views in the oil industry. Until they know the tax position, they cannot make a decision. All we propose in new clause 1 is to give power to the Secretary of State to establish a grant system. We are saying not that such a system should be implemented, but that it is a reasonable option. It is in that light that we put forward new clause 1.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proposing the new clause because it raises an important issue. Although we touched on it in Committee it is helpful and relevant to return to it because it is, I understand, still under discussion in the industry as a possible means of handling the financial aspects of abandonment. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the matter has also been discussed in Norway, although I do not think that anything has yet been approved by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting, as the route to be followed.
    As I said in Committee, the way in which the Government eventually decide to pay their share of abandonment costs still needs further consideration. That will include consideration of the possibility of the non-fiscal, grant-aided approach that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am aware that some people in the industry have expressed a preference for that approach, although I believe that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association is still considering whether to make a formal request to the Government that this be considered.
    As I told the House on Second Reading, the Bill contains provisions which give an enabling power to amend royalties procedures so that abandonment costs may be carried back and set off against royalties paid earlier. This enabling power will be used only if the Government decide that the existing fiscal system of relief for abandonment costs should be maintained, possibly with some technical amendments. Against that background, I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks whether the other route might be considered as well.
    372
    The Government have not come to a final view, but if we go down the grants route I do not believe that it is necessary to provide the power now, so not providing the power in no way prejudices consideration of the non-fiscal route. The House should reflect that under neither route is it envisaged that very much in the way of grant or tax and royalty relief will need to be given for a number of years, although I acknowledge that when abandonment happens considerable sums of money may be involved. It is possible that one or two abandonments will take place earlier but the great bulk of abandonment is likely to be later in the next decade, possibly towards the end of the century and later.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Minister tell us where the platforms are situated which are likely to face removal earlier?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is impossible to be specific because no company has yet come forward with proposals for abandonment. Of course, companies are not required to do so. One of the things that has marked the North sea, as we discussed in Committee, is the fact that most of the fields have so far performed better than was envisaged. That has meant that their life has been longer than expected. Speculation on when platforms are likely to be removed is like speculation on the price of oil—one is as likely to be wrong as right, so it is not speculation that I wish to undertake.
    The point I was making is that this is some time away, so if a grant system were to be adopted it would be a considerable time before a significant number of payments had to be made. In those circumstances, it would be necessary to make legislative provision, which would have to be put before parliament in due course. Of course, we already have fiscal arrangements because the costs can be put against the taxes which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The general arrangements are in place, although detailed arrangements would have to be discussed between the industry and the Inland Revenue. No doubt consultation would take place. Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide on the changes necessary to take full account of the details and the special circumstances that may arise.
    We have in place tax arrangements which would allow the fiscal route to be followed. With that route, the need to repay royalties could involve adjusting royalty assessments for some years prior to abandonment. As we have those tax facilities in place, we decided that it was wise to use the opportunity of the Bill to make the enabling power applicable to such assessments from an early date as it is obviouslynot desirable retrospectively to amend the licence model clauses under which the assessments are made.
    If I recollect correctly, in Committee the hon. Gentleman said that the carry-back power in the Bill might not go far enough. I said that in such cases, which would probably be isolated cases, if further carry back were necessary it could be dealt with by amendments to the individual licences. That illustrates that if we are to follow the fiscal route now in place we must legislate now. If, after further consultation with the industry, we decide to go down the route suggested in the new clause, there is not the same urgency to legislate now, although power would have to be taken at the appropriate time in order to be able to follow that route.
    Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman has confined his remarks to royalty payments and repayments for abandonment costs. Will he say something about PRT? Royalty payments bring in about £2 billion per year from the North sea, but PRT brings in about £6 billion, so the problems about PRT will concern us most.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is no doubt that the bulk of abandonment costs would be against PRT. If changes have to be made to the rules, the ability to make those changes already exists, but we do not have the necessary powers in relation to royalties. That is the reason for the Bill.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. We have chosen this Bill to legislate in a specific way and I suppose that that shows that to some extent this is the preferred route to allow for abandonment costs. As I said earlier, I emphasise that no final decision has been taken and the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests is still possible. It is being considered by the industry and if the industry wishes to argue a case my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will consult with the industry. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman seeks one route or the other. He is simply saying that this is an alternative route which might be used. Nothing in the Bill would prejudice the use of that route, and it does not require legislation at a later stage. Given that clarification, I do not think that the new clause should be pressed.
    Mr. Rowlands: I am half comforted by what the Minister has said. It is at least clear that he has an open mind about the notion that we might pursue a resolution of the problem of abandonment costs by grant rather than by tax relief. He has said that he will keep the option open. I am a little less comforted by his account of the system and the tax position. We need much better and more urgent clarification of the tax position than he has given us. We also need that information earlier than the date he has suggested.
    I got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that things could be sorted out in due course. The fiscal framework within which the abandonment programmes will be prepared is closely related to the important amendments to clause 2 and the matters of liability and responsibility. If the Minister feels that there is an urgent need for a legislative framework to prepare and bring forward abandonment programmes, there is an equal and similar urgency about resolving the fiscal framework within which these programmes will be prepared.
    We support the idea of using joint operating agreements or similar agreements to establish proper liability and responsibility for abandonment programmes along the lines of the amendments that we will debate later. Many companies will negotiate, often with their smaller partners. In the BP Forties field there is a string of small interests on some of the licences and there could be negotiations on the joint operating agreements. Every company will say that it accepts the responsibility and the liability but the companies will want to know the fiscal position. Some of the difficulties in renegotiating and reorganising the joint operating agreements or similar agreements to establish liability and responsibility for
    374
    abandonment programmes, will be affected by the lack of conclusion and uncertainty and doubts about the fiscal position.
    The fiscal problems will come earlier rather than later. We know that some companies and some groups will consider whether or not to establish a trust fund to cover now their portion of the future cost of abandonment. Will that trust fund money be eligible for tax relief? That issue is bound to arise fairly soon, as will the nature and character of tax relief. I am grateful that we have taken action to cover the royalty relief provisions. We accept that that is an important change and the Minister will know that we have not opposed that provision, but have sought to clarify it. He will be asked about whether it is effective and comprehensive enough.
    The real doubts and difficulties will arise over PRT. I said that this is the largest source of revenue from the North sea. With APRT, it is running at over £6 billion a year. That does not include the extra slab of enforced loans. It is a substantial part of the revenue from the North sea. One wicked thought that crossed my mind and might have crossed the minds of other hon. Members is that in the mid-1990s, as PRT revenues decline, it could be cheaper for the Treasury to abolish PRT rather than accept the liability of repaying it to cover abandonment costs. PRT has a direct bearing on production and profitability. In the mid-1990s, the repayments could come close to wiping out the revenue. A Chancellor stuck for cash will be tempted to abolish PRT when it is declining, at the very time when relief for abandonment costs would be needed.
    I hope we have made the case to the Minister that these issues are not for the long term. They will be relatively immediate issues for companies to think about and resolve as they prepare their abandonment programmes and renegotiate and revise their joint operating agreements or establish similar agreements for responsibility and liability for abandonment programmes. As I said, I am half comforted by the Minister's comment that he has an open mind on these matters. I urge him to take a much more urgent look at the whole situation with the Inland Revenue and his Treasury colleagues, because we will need a fiscal framework just as much as we need a legislative one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 2

    PERSONS WHO MUST SUBMIT PROGRAMMES
    Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
    `(b) a person who is a concession owner in relation to the installation for the purposes of that Act insofar as they relate to the relevant activities or who was a concession owner for those purposes when a relevant activity was last carried on from, by means of or on the installation;'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 25 leave out paragraphs (b) to (d) and insert—

    (b) a person outside paragraph (a) who is a party to a joint operating agreement or similar agreement;

    (c) a person outside paragraphs (a) and (b) who owns any interest in the installation otherwise than as a security for a loan;

    375

    (d) a company which is outside paragraphs (a) to (c) but is associated with a company within any of those paragraphs.'.

    Government amendment No. 3.
    Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
    '(2) In subsection (1), "relevant activities" means activities within paragraphs (a) and (c) (but not insofar as paragraph (c) refers to paragraph (b) of section 12(2) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.'.
    Government amendment No. 5.
    Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and (c).
    Government amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17.
    Mr. Proctor: Before I speak to my amendments, I shall make some general observations as my amendments have been grouped with Government amendments.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend coming forward with these amendments. In Committee we had long, detailed discussions about recasting clause 2 and the consequential clauses. My right hon. Friend said that he had taken heed of our thoughts and would consider them. I am aware that constructive talks took place and continue to take place between my right hon. Friend, officials in his Department and the industry, whose interests are represented by UKOOA. Those deliberations have been fruitful and have produced the Government amendments, for which I and the industry are grateful.
    However, having said that, I am tempted to introduce a note of caution and refer back to the amendments I have tabled. There are one or two matters of concern where the industry and, perhaps, hon. Members would like my right hon. Friend to go even further. My amendments refer to clause 2(1)(b), which permits the giving of notices requiring submission to an abandonment programme for an offshore installation of
    "a person who is a concession owner in relation to the installation for the purposes of that Act"—
    the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971—
    "or who was a concession owner for those purposes when an activity within Section 12(2) of that Act was last carried on from, by means of or on the installation;".
    Anyone following the argument so far will realise that it is rather technical and complicated. I understand that the industry believe that the wide definition of "concession owner" will cause injustice because of its application to installations that serve other fields—for example, those installations that act as gathering centres collecting production from a number of local fields for transmission by a large capacity pipeline to shore.
    The definition of concession owner in relation to any installation is contained in section 12(2) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 as amended by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982. I will not read those definitions to the House now.
    In Committee on 13 January, my right hon. Friend explained what he meant by the term "concession owner", when he said:
    "With regard to off-shore installations, the concession owners will be the holders of the relevant petroleum production licences. The term concession owner is used in the Bill, and that is why the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised his question. I believe that he wanted to know what the antecedents were for its use. It is used to keep continuity with the offshore safety regime established in the Mineral Working (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, by
    376
    reference to which offshore installations are defined in clause 16(1). I hope that that makes it absolutely clear."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 January 1987; c. 220.]
    With due respect to my right hon. Friend, the industry does not believe that that has made the position absolutely clear. It is not clear to the industry which are the relevant licences, whose holders will be liable for abandonment of an installation. Does my right hon. Friend mean the production licence holders in whose area the installation is situated?
    The industry's concern is best demonstrated by the example—hon. Members may have been given it in a briefing— of the Ninian central platform. It is a gathering centre for production from three fields as well as transmitting its produce down the main oil line that runs from the Ninian central platform to Sullom Voe. One such field is Heather, whose platform is connected by a lateral pipeline to the Ninian central platform. That lateral pipeline connects with a riser and top deck equipment on the Ninian central platform, which in turn joins the end of the main oil line on the platform.
    7.45 pm
    The Heather partners have no interest in the Ninian central platform or in Ninian production. Consequently, in all fairness, the industry believes that they should not be liable for the abandonment of the Ninian central platform. The industry would like my right hon. Friend to state whether the Heather partners are concession owners in relation to the Ninian central platform and, if so, whether they are consequently liable for its abandonment.
    In materially applying the definition in section 12(2) of the 1971 Act to the facts, we arrive at the following formula:
    "A person who has the right to exploit or explore mineral resources in the licensed area including the Heather field (Block 2/5)…shall be a concession owner for the purposes of this Act in relation to the Ninian Central Platform at any time if, at that time, there is carried on from, by means of or on the Ninian Central Platform any of the following activities, namely—
    (b) the conveyance in that area (Block 2/5) by means of a pipe or system of pipes, or minerals gotten (Heather production)…in the exercise of that right (the Heather licence)."
    Conveyance means getting from point A to point B. The Heather production is conveyed through a system of pipes from the Heather platform via the Ninian central platform to Sullom Voe. That system of pipes crosses, and is supported by, the Ninian central platform. Similarly, the top deck equipment involved is located on the Ninian central platform. Without that platform, conveyance could not take place in exactly the same manner. The industry therefore considers that it cannot exclude the conclusion that the conveyance of Heather production in the Heather licence area, by means of a system of pipes crossing Ninian central platform, is an activity carried out through that platform. Consequently. the industry believes that Heather partners may be liable for that platform's abandonment.
    The industry understands that Government lawyers take a different view from the lawyers that the industry have consulted. The Government lawyers consider—when current facts are applied—that only the holders of the production licences covering the Ninian field would be within the definition of concession owners in relation to the Ninian central platform.
    I have demonstrated that that interpretation is, at the very least, open to question and doubt. It will be no protection in legal proceedings because, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, judges are not allowed to consider

    377
    our deliberations, or the correspondence between the Government's lawyers and lawyers for the oil companies or UKOOA.
    The basis on which the industry is supporting the Government's amendments to the Bill relates to clause 3 and amendment No. 9 to it, which gives relief from lifting the corporate veil to make unrelated and associated companies liable for abandonment, provided that adequate arrangements have been made by persons within paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of clause 2(1) to ensure that a satisfactory abandonment programme is carried out. As the extent of persons within paragraph (b) is uncertain, that relief could easily be lost to the industry.
    That and the basic inequity of making unrelated fields liable for abandonment of an installation in which they have no interest seems too high a price to pay for continuity with the offshore safety regime. Continuity is a matter of tidy legislative housekeeping not necessity.
    Clearly, there is a dispute on this matter between the Department's lawyers and the industry's lawyers as to the meaning of the term "concession owners". Scope should not be left for lawyers to disagree on that matter, because inevitably that will lead to expense and ultimately to grievance. I am not arguing about who is right and who is wrong. Both sides have consulted very sophisticated and, presumably, expensive lawyers, and there is disagreement. The matter is demonstrably unclear and must be resolved. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. It has been considered in Committee, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider it again and to look at it with the same flexibility and courtesy that were the hallmarks by which he conducted the proceedings in Committee.
    Mr. Rowlands: I am not quite sure of the best way to proceed with the amendments. I was waiting for the Minister to explain them, or to come in first. However, perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened at this stage. We should like the right to pursue these matters again after the Minister has introduced his amendments.
    It is a pity that we are taking these in one sweep, because two separate issues are contained in this clutch of amendments. One set deals with clause 2 which relates to pipelines, and the other with installations. In Committee we realised increasingly that the two sets of amendments had to be looked at separately because they presented separate problems and arguments. Therefore, we are having to consider an enormous collection of amendments that deal with pipelines and installations. I shall have an initial shot, but I should like the right to return to the battle when we have heard the Minister—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall, of course, do my best to accommodate the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he realises that we are on Report and not in Committee.
    Mr. Rowlands: I was trying to suggest that the House will be put in some difficulty because of this large group of amendments on such wide and separate issues, including several significant changes that the Government introduced to their own Bill as a result of our discussions in Committee. We need to digest those changes, and the Minister needs to explain them to us.
    To avoid any doubt— we said it enough times in Committee—we have a common objective in devising a proper clause 2. That is to make sure that that liability is
    378
    properly placed, the responsibility is clearly identified, and the financial consequences of abandonment are guaranteed. Those basic principles and objectives are shared by all hon. Members. There is no difference of opinion about the objective that we seek to achieve in clause 2. We want the liability clearly and properly placed upon those who should be liable and we want the responsibility for preparing, developing and implementing the abandonment programmes clearly identified. Obviously, we need financial arrangements to guarantee that the state does not pick up more of the tab than it should.
    Such an objective requires that there should be no doubt or confusion about the law. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) made that point. We have not signed his amendment because, as he will notice, we are trying to do it differently, by omitting the offending subparagraph about concession owners. However, we have no difficulty in supporting his amendment and are willing to join him in pressing it.
    We should ensure that there is absolutely no doubt abour our common objective, which must not leave any confusion or doubt in legislation or in the law. It is because there is doubt and, as the hon. Gentleman said, because there is a genuine difference of legal opinion about the paragraph that he and we are seeking to amend, that we are expressing concern and anxiety at this late stage.
    As we know, when faced with the problem of trying to place the responsibility and to identify those upon whom to serve the notices under clause 2, the Government chose a catch-all method. It smacked of the Inland Revenue which, when in doubt, serves a notice upon anybody who is walking past to make sure that it does not miss anybody. It tries to catch anybody and anyone in the hope of eventually catching those it wants to catch. That solution caused considerable worry and concern to the industry and also to hon. Members in Committee.
    Quite properly, after continuous consultation in Committee, the Minister announced that he intended to recast parts of clause 2 to meet the legitimate worries, concerns and objections. The amendments tabled by the Minister today go a long way to fulfilling his commitments.
    I know that it might seem rather churlish of us to pursue that point again, but it is essential. The Minister decided—we supported the principle—that instead of serving notices on almost everybody under the wide and sweeping powers of clause 2, notices should initially be served on the operators, on those who are named on the licence or on those in partnership in a joint operating agreement. As the Minister knows, we not only support that proposition, but advocated it from the first day of the Committee stage. I said that the simplest and least confusing way would be to place the responsibility and liability upon those who would be uniquely qualified to deal with those problems—the operators and the co-licensees involved with the installations. We felt that that was where the burden of notice-serving should go.
    The Minister substantially met that point, by his amendment to clause 2 and, more significantly, by amending clause 3. That showed that he would not serve notices on all possible subsidiary interested parties until the operator and the co-licensees had had the fullest opportunity, within a decent time scale, to establish proper collective liability, to the Minister's satisfaction. Why spoil

    379
    that important recasting of this part of the Bill by clinging to that part of the clause, which has caused, and which continues to cause, such genuine confusion?
    As I have said, we have a common objective. An essential aspect is to avoid further confusion or doubt about where the liability or responsibility should rest. However, by clinging to the subsection, the reference to "concession owner" is still causing confusion and concern, despite the attempts of the Minister and his Department to persuade the industry that it does not mean what it says.
    Therefore, there is no reason or case. We wait, with considerable interest, for the Minister to identify exactly who will be caught by the term "concession owner". So far, we all agree that notices should be served first and foremost on operators. We believe that notices should be served on those parties who form, belong to or are part of a joint operating agreement on any installation. We have accepted that there should also be an opportunity to serve notices at a later date, if need be, upon other persons who have an interest, but who do not have a secured loan—in other words, not a bank. We accept that, albeit reluctantly, as will be clear when we debate amendments Nos. 7 and 8. We have even accepted the principle of serving notices on associated companies, thereby piercing the so-called corporate veil. We even support the Government to that extent.
    Who, then, are we talking about, other than those categories who are at present in the North sea? Can anyone name an installation that is not covered by any one of those definitions? We have hunted high and low for exceptions. Where are they? All we have come up with are the curious arrangements on the Ekofisk borderline which are the subject of Orders in Council under the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. I have the block numbers with me and should be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether this is what he is after. There are midline stations in block 36/22 and block 37/4 and there is a gas compressor station in block 14. Some of those are covered by Orders in Council.
    8 pm
    The problem is that no joint operative agreements are in force for those installations, nor are they under any operator. Surely they are covered by the third category, of a person with an interest other than in a secured loan. People own them and their ownership is not difficult to identify. They have been the subject of Orders in Council and they would be covered under the provision of a person with an interest. Are these the unique installations that the Minister is trying to cover in his term "concession owner'"?
    We cover operators and everybody who is party to an installation through a joint operating agreement or something similar. If that does not catch everybody, we cover people with an interest in any installation, other than one based on a secured loan, and associated companies. So we cover all the possibilities of those with an interest in North sea oil installations. If the Minister has these three extraordinary cases in mind, surely they too are covered by the broad definition of a person other than an operator or a co-licensee who has an interest in an installation. Therefore, those exceptional cases, which are covered by Orders in Council, would be covered by that
    380
    provision. What in the name of heaven is the phrase "concession owner" doing in the clause? For what installation is it necessary to have that provision?
    I do not wish to repeat the case made by the hon. Member for Billericay and his illustration of the connection between the Heather and Ninian central platforms. Such doubts have been represented to us all. I am not a voice for the industry—far from it; the last thing it would want is to identify with many of my views—but I have had to listen to a sensible case made by sensible people who know the score and are obviously worried about the consequence of leaving those words in the Bill without proper definition.
    On the first batch of amendments— the Government's amendments relating to installations, the amendment of the hon. Member for Billericay and our amendments—I hope that the Minister will make this final concession and ensure that not an ounce of doubt is left in anybody's mind about responsibility and liability and the persons on whom notices will be served. Otherwise, the Minister will spoil the very thing that all of us have sought to do in recasting clause 2.
    Now I must turn to the second half of the batch of amendments, dealing with pipelines. In Committee, pipelines loomed larger and larger during our discussions. I do not know how pipelines loom, although installations loom, but I am speaking metaphorically. Perhaps it would be better to say that we began to follow the pipelines issue increasingly carefully. We realised, and even the Minister admitted, that genuine new issues were arising about programmes to deal with abandoned pipelines.
    It is difficult to find out where responsibility lies. Under the Bill, in the incredible gas-gathering structure of the North sea, where one set of pipelines was linked to another, liability would run with that link. A person who did not own the pipeline in question but whose pipeline was linked to it could suddenly be liable for the abandonment of that other person's pipeline. The Minister recognised that, and towards the end of our proceedings identified the route that he intended to take. That was to take advantage of the little-used section 33 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 to serve designation orders and to define the ownership of the pipeline.
    We thought that was fine. Applying the test for the Bill—that it leaves no confusion or doubt—we thought that that was marvellous and that, through the designation orders, we would identify the ownership of the pipeline clearly. In that way everyone would know what they were liable for and for which pipelines they were responsible. I thought that was an excellent solution. But again, the Minister has inserted a belt and braces provision and has thrown another category in on top of that, instead of sticking to a clear, simple, well defined basis.
    Designation orders would establish the ownership of pipelines in the North sea. The provision in section 33 allows for consultation with the industries, so agreement could be reached on who owns a pipeline. But then on top of that we have another subsection to cover a person outside paragraph (a) who owns any interest in the whole of the pipeline other than as security for a loan.
    Who is that? If, under the 1975 Act, we are to designate the ownership of the pipeline system in the North sea, which other people will have an interest? We shall have established the interest through the designation process.

    381
    Who else could be caught under this provision, having defined the whole ownership of the pipeline system? Who else could possibly be included in that category?
    Rather than a simple, clear, well-defined identification of liability, there will again be doubt and anxiety about whether other people can become liable for pipelines in which they have a marginal or nominal interest, to say the least. That has been the problem from the start with the construction of clause 2. We have done a great deal to change it and we welcome the Government's amendments, because they meet many of the points raised by us in Committee. Our doubts and anxieties were shared by the Minister—we make no party point about this—but he has still left confusion and doubt. Otherwise we would not have received the representations that we have which have led to our amendments.
    I hope that tonight the Minister will go a step further and amend this provision on installations. If not, I hope he will tell us exactly whom he is trying to catch by the concession owner provisions, and that he will clarify the position on pipelines.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am happy to respond to the debate. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, we share a common objective. Indeed, I share also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) about what we are trying to achieve. The only difference that may be between us on this matter is whether I shall achieve what my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and I seek to achieve and, indeed, whether I shall go too far. I certainly welcome the opportunity to try to clarify the position.
    I shall deal first with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay. That deals with a more limited matter. None the less, it is important to the industry within the much wider-ranging changes that I propose in the amendments that I hope to have the opportunity to move formally at a later stage. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House on this matter. Our objectives are identical. I do not have any difference with him or any other hon. Member about what we are trying to achieve.
    My hon. Friend asked me whether what he and I are trying to achieve is absolutely clear in legal terms. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on that matter. From discussions in Committee and subsequent discussions with representatives of the oil companies and with my legal advisers, I certainly believe that the position is absolutely clear in the Bill as drafted.
    The effect of the term "concession owner" is critical to the Bill. I reiterate what my hon. Friend has said. It has the same meaning as section 12(2) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, as amended by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982. For the purposes of the 1971 Act, to be a concession owner in relation to an offshore installation a person must have the right to exploit or explore mineral resources or store and recover gas in an area, and one or more qualifying activities must be carried on from, by means of or on the installation. The qualifying activities are, in summary, the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources or the storage or recovery of gas, the conveyance of minerals or gas and the provision of accommodation. I have spelt that out in some detail because the definition is complicated.
    I ask my hon. Friend whether he has appreciated the precise application. To illustrate that point, I shall refer to
    382
    the precise example that he gave and the type of application that he thought led to the confusion. The example that my hon. Friend gave related to the Ninian central platform. As he correctly described, it serves as a gathering centre for production from three fields—Heather, Magnus and North Alwyn, as well as its own. The oil is gathered there for subsequent transmission down a pipeline to Sullom Voe. These four fields—this is an important point— are in different licensed areas. My hon. Friend has suggested that the licensees of the Heather field, for example, could be concession owners in relation to the Ninian central platform because the production from Heather is conveyed through a system of pipes through the Ninian central platform to the shore.
    8.15 pm
    I must refer closely to the words of section 12(2)(b) of the definition in the 1971 Act, as amended by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, which my hon. Friend and I mentioned earlier. Subsection 2(b) refers to
    "the conveyance in that area".
    That is a critical phrase. It means the area of the concession. It goes on:
    "by means of a pipe or system of pipes of minerals gotten, or gas being stored or recovered, in the exercise of that right."
    Again, that is a critical phrase because it refers to the right granted by the concession.
    I understand the concerns of the industry. Therefore, I have looked closely at this matter and not only taken the legal advice available to me but also consulted parliamentary counsel. It is clear to them that the words "in that area" in the paragraph to which I referred limit the operation of the conveying function by reference to which a person may be a concession owner in relation to an offshore installation to the area of the concession. I shall put it another way. I have tried to follow closely the provisions of the Act. Putting this matter into layman's language, the holder of a petroleum production licence cannot he a concession owner for the purposes of the Bill in relation to an offshore installation situated in a different licensed area simply because some of his petroleum passes over or through it on its way to the shore. That is the legal explanation. I am reassured— I take seriously the Committee debates and what my hon. Friend said——that the Bill as drafted precisely covers this point. The Bill does not require any further amendment. I hope that, with reference to the previous Act, I have reassured my hon. Friend about that point.
    Mr. Rowlands: I have closely followed the Minister's remarks. I shall pose a question in layman's terms in the hope that he can give an affirmative answer. Could not the Heather partners, who have no interest in the Ninian platform or production, possibly have liability for the abandonment of the Ninian central platform? If the Minister will confirm that point, at least we will know that we have translated the legal language into a practical example.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is right. The hon. Gentleman has correctly translated my interpretation of the legal situation.
    This is an important point. It is one about which, even following discussions, some representatives of the oil industry have been concerned. I hope that my spelling out of this matter will have helped to reassure them why I am so confident that this measure is correct. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay that I do not seek to rest

    383
    on reassurances that, I appreciate, could have no force of law. I rest my case on what is in the Bill, which, in turn, is based on previous legislation.
    I wish to refer now to my substantial group of amendments. In doing so, I shall cover some of the points that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised. I am glad to be able to respond to the Committee and to the House. I appreciate that, because of the way the Bill was drafted originally—this was a point of concern at all stages of deliberation from Second Reading—there was genuine concern that the Bill was cast rather too widely. It was considered that we could have achieved our purposes effectively without ranging so wide. I was glad to have the reassurance of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that in certain circumstances one must maintain ultimate protection for the taxpayer, but that we should go down a rather more sensible road. That is what I have tried to do, and that is why I gave the commitment in Committee on 13 January.
    The amendments introduce a trigger mechanism into the arrangements for serving notice outside the immediate licensees of installations and parties to joint operating agreements, or designated owners in the case of submarine pipelines. I am sorry that this has involved such a complicated and formidable batch of amendments. However, I warned the Committee that might be the case.
    There are two amendments to clause 2. Amendment No. 3, which relates to installations, introduces for the first time parties to a joint operating agreement or similar agreement— I emphasise that, because it does not necessarily have to be a joint operating agreement—as persons to whom notice may be given under clause 1. That is a logical development, and I believe that it was accepted in Committee, because it is under the joint operating agreement that the conduct of operations in the licensed area will generally be regulated.
    Thus, as far as installations are concerned, the Secretary of State will in the first instance have three groups of persons upon whom to draw in giving notice, as we are retaining power to give notice to the person who has registered the installation, pursuant to the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 and "concession owners", as defined in that Act, with whom I dealt a moment ago. That is necessary to cover the situation where, for example, there is no joint operating agreement because there is only one licensee.
    Where there is a joint operating agreement, the person who has registered the installation and the concession owners will invariably be parties to it. New paragraphs (d) and (e) of clause 2(1) identify the parties to whom notice under clause 1 may be given at a later stage—that is, if those companies to which I shall initially be looking to complete the arrangements referred to in amendment No. 9 to clause 3 have been unable to do so. They are similar to paragraphs (c) and (d) in the Bill as originally drafted, except that here again we have fulfilled a commitment that we entered into in Committee to take out of the scope of clause 2 a person whose sole interest is as security for a loan, such as a bank or an institution. That is covered by amendment No. 3.
    Amendment No. 5, which is the second important amendment, concerns pipelines and it parallels the first amendment. The groups of persons to whom notice may be given are essentially similar to those in the existing
    384
    clause 2(2), except that once again we have excluded banks and institutions, whose sole interest is as security for a loan, from the ambit of paragraph (b). We have also removed the possibility that the owner of a small part of any pipeline system should be made liable for the abandonment of an entire system by introducing a reference to
    "the whole or substantially the whole"
    of the pipeline in paragraph (b).
    That is the first batch of amendments, which define more closely those upon whom notices may be served.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As we are on Report, I should like to follow the amendments through logically. That might be helpful to the House. The hon. Gentleman can then make a speech and I shall pick up any points that he makes.
    The important point about these changes we propose to clause 3 is that, by having provided new definitions, we ensure that there is a particular sequence of events so that a catch-all situation becomes a fallback and long stop, not a first stop. That is why amendment No. 9 to clause 3, to which I referred briefly a moment ago, is critical. The amendments to clause 3 provide the trigger mechanisms that enable the Secretary of State to serve notice on the wider classes of companies referred to in clause 2.
    Subsection (1A) stipulates that the Secretary of State may not serve a notice before 1 July 1988 on the companies in the wider classes to which I have just referred—that is, to associated companies and companies owning an interest in the installation or pipeline but which do not, however, fall within subsection (1) (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (2) (a) of clause 2. The purpose of this date is to enable companies to which notice has been given to enter into appropriate abandonment arrangements. We recognise that this may not always be easy, but we have to guard against providing an opportunity for unnecessary delay.
    We believe that the date 1 July 1988—although I do not claim that there is anything desperately magical about it—provides, in practical terms, a reasonable balance between not requiring things to be done too quickly and preventing companies from unnecessarily delaying putting in place the kind of arrangements that I should like to be put in place through the joint operating agreement, or a similar agreement, between the parties to the licence. There will, of course, be no compulsion on the Secretary of State to give notice more widely, once that date is agreed. He will still be able to exercise a certain amount of discretion, and I have no doubt that in practice the parties will be in touch with the Department of Energy. If they believe that a satisfactory arrangement is within reach, although the precise date has not been complied with, I am quite sure that they will want the Secretary of State to hold his fire. I am also quite sure that in such circumstances any reasonable Secretary of State would do so.
    New subsections (2A) and (3A) prevent the Secretary of State from serving notice more widely in respect of either offshore installations or submarine pipelines where he is satisfied with the arrangements, including financial arrangements, which have been made for abandonment by the persons to whom notice has already been given. The

    385
    effect of this is that the Secretary of State may not give notice more widely where satisfactory arrangements have been made and where they continue in operation.
    New subsection (4A) enables the Secretary of State to serve notice more widely, either because the persons to whom notice has already been given have failed to submit an abandonment programme or because a programme, for one reason or another, has been rejected by the Secretary of State. This is the first circumstance amounting to default to which I referred in Standing Committee. The second circumstance of default is provided by the new subsection (2A) to clause 6— amendment No. 17—which enables the Secretary of State to propose that any of the wider classes of companies mentioned in clause 2 should become liable to secure that an abandonment programme is carried out, where a person who is already under such a duty has failed to carry it out, or seems likely to fail. The Secretary of State can therefore step in if at any time after approval of a programme he becomes concerned as to the financial status of the parties concerned.
    I have attempted to deal with the main amendments. There are other amendments, but I assure the House that they are of a purely consequential nature. However, I hope that my explanation has followed through the sequence of events and that I have reassured the House about what I have achieved. Nevertheless, there is one matter to which I should like to return. I have dealt with the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay and I hope that at the same time I have covered most of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfyl and Rhymney. However, I do not think that I have yet answered adequately his second amendment that deals with pipelines.
    Mr. Rowlands: Before the Minister deals with my pipelines amendment, I should point out that he has not answered the question that I put to him about concession owners. Who is a concession owner who is not an operator, a co-licensee or a person with an interest in the installation?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We need this term to cover all the licensees. It is conceivable that there may be no joint operating agreement. We may not always know who owns an installation. We always know who the licensees are. That is why it is important to follow it through that particular route.
    8.30 pm
    I shall turn to the point on pipelines that was made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I confirm that it is our intention, in the first instance, to give notice under clause 1 to designated owners of pipelines. The designation exercise is under way already. One of the reasons why I have chosen this route is that we already have the power. I hope that I reassured the hon. Gentleman in Committee as to why we have chosen that route. It is our intention to follow the industry's practice and avoid the potential difficulties that were mentioned in Committee with respect to spur lines, T-junctions and so on.
    However—this is where I am not happy with the hon. Gentleman's second amendment— we need the opportunity to give notice more widely should there be default in submitting a programme or in carrying it out. That is the purpose of paragraphs (b) and (c), which the
    386
    hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove by amendment No. 2. I have referred to amendments which affect that part of the Bill.
    I hope that I have reassured the House on these points. This is an important part of the Bill. Indeed, it is the crux of the approach to the method of abandonment. On Second Reading this issue was raised, but no solution was identified. The full debates in Committee were of considerable help to me and to my Department in forming our view of the best approach, while ensuring that we protected the taxpayer. We have reached a solution which not only prevents powers from being used too widely, but gives the ultimate protection, which I hope will not be necessary.
    I look to licensees, and those who work in a joint operating agreement, to put abandonment arrangements in place, either through the joint operating agreement or through some parallel agreement. If that is done, there should be no need to cast the net more widely. It has given us an opportunity to change the Bill quite substantially. I welcome the contructive way in which Members on both sides of the House have approached it. I hope that there will not be too many lingering doubts left.
    Mr. Rowlands: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply. It would be churlish to carry on quibbling. the amendments represent a substantial change to the Bill, particularly the amendment to clause 3, which we did not debate because we were in wholehearted agreement with it, including the deadline of July 1988. That deadline will help people to concentrate their minds.
    It is mind-boggling to believe that there are anonymous or pirate installations in the North sea, the ownership of which is not known to the Department of Energy. I hope that the Minister will check how many of those there are. It will be difficult, having served a designation order on the owners of pipelines, to find another group of people who have a whole or substantial interest in it—somebody separate from those covered by a designation order. We will have to wait and see in both cases.
    We take considerable comfort from the specific illustration that has been presented to us, which could have caused concern. The Minister was assuring and legally put his head on the block by saying that the worries and concerns that we had are not valid. In the light of that, we will not be pressing our amendments.
    Mr. Proctor: With the leave of the House, may I say that I will not be pressing the two amendments that I tabled, for similar reasons to that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). It appears to me that the Government amendments mean that we are moving away from the sub-machine gun approach to the preciseness of the sniper's shot. For that reason, the amendments are to be supported and welcomed.
    My right hon. Friend stressed the importance of the timing and phasing of the powers that are available to the Secretary of State. That is important and is underlined in the amendments. With regard to my amendment Nos. 1 and 4, I thought that my right hon. Friend went as far as he could in making crystal clear what he believed the position to be. I rest content, having heard that tonight, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert—

    387

    `(c) a person outside paragraphs (a) and (b) who is a party to a joint operating agreement or similar agreement relating to rights by virtue of which a person is within paragraph (b);

    (d) a person outside paragraphs (a) to (c) who owns any interest in the installation otherwise than as security for a loan;

    (e) a company which is outside paragraphs (a) to (d) but is associated with a company within any of those paragraphs.'.

    No. 5, in page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—

    (b) a person outside paragraph (a) who owns any interest in the whole or substantially the whole of the pipe-line, otherwise than as security for a loan;

    (c) a company which is outside paragraphs (a) and (b) but is associated with a company within one of those paragraphs.'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

    Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No.7, in page 2, line 53, leave out 'one-half or more' and insert 'more than one half.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
    Mr. Rowlands: This gives an opportunity to have one last look at one of the potentially contentious issues in clause 2—the piercing of the so-called corporate veil by the provision in clause 2 to serve a notice on a company associated with another company and make it responsible and liable for abandonment. Rather than attack the principle of it, we have used these two amendments to uncover how far and to what extent the associated company chase will take. We have questioned the definition of ownership, put down in subsection (5), where it says
    "one half or more of the issued share capital of the company".
    The controlling share, surely, is 51 per cent. A company cannot be said to be in control of another company if it has joint ownership. Therefore, we want to know why just one half. Why not more than one half, 51 per cent., which everyone would identify as a controlling share? Having written all these paragraphs out— (a) (b) (c) and (d)—to define ownership, on top of that, it is said:
    "or if it has power, directly or indirectly, to secure that the affairs of the company are conducted in accordance with its wishes."
    In other words, although we have a definition of ownership in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d), on top of that we have the word "or", and another definition of what could be a controlling interest, irrespective of the definition in subsection 5. We want the Minister to get the antecedents and parentage of these definitions, because they are important.
    Although we understand why the Minister has chosen to introduce the principle of seeking to go behind one company back to a parent or associated company in the ultimate possible serving of notices, the Minister ought to be as worried as we are about the precedent that that is creating. If that becomes model legislation for other member states, some British companies that have a marginal interest in an installation in another part of the world— perhaps in the south China seas or off the Malaysian coast— and if other nations pick up this legislative model and serve notices on British parent companies, which might have the most marginal involvement in companies that are responsible for
    388
    installations in other nations' waters, we could find that those companies go to see our ambassadors and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make representations, only to be told that the powers that are being used against them are modelled on British legislation.
    The definition opens a wide door. The Minister might think that the British Government will behave sensibly, but British companies could become liable for abandonment programmes in which they have only a marginal interest. A serious precedent is being created and the House should not let it go through without being aware of its dangers.
    We are seeking clarification and want the Minister to tell us where the definition comes from. We did not debate this part of the Bill thoroughly in Committee.
    Mr. Proctor: I should not like the House to feel that the Opposition have a monopoly of concern in this matter. It was raised by both sides in Committee. Anxiety remains, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has given.
    There are many joint venture agreements involving British companies and companies from other countries where there is a 50:50 per cent. shareholding and no absolute control. A deadlock can no doubt occur. I wonder whether it is fair for such companies to be caught by the 50 per cent. rule. I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We did not debate this area of the Bill in detail in Committee and I quite understand why the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) seeks clarification now. I am happy to try to provide that clarification.
    Clause 2(5)(a), which the hon. Gentleman would amend, provides a test of control when one company has, or is entitled to acquire, one half or more of the issued share capital of another company. The hon. Gentleman said that the clause appeared to redefine control when he spoke on Second Reading. He assumed that control involved ownership of 51 per cent. of the share capital. He is quite right to say that the clause provides for a 50 per cent. test of ownership. It does that for one reason—to catch what is called the deadlock company. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). who has great knowledge of these matters, understands that. That happens when a company has been set up by collaborating companies, often for a specific project, and each company holds 50 per cent. of the new company's shares.
    8.45 pm
    Amendment No. 7 would not catch that type of deadlock company. The hon. Gentleman also said that the 50 per cent. test raises major issues and suggested what might happen to British companies abroad if our provisions were applied more widely. He will be familiar with the terms of the model clauses in the petroleum production licences such as those set out in part III of schedule 2 to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975, which provides a test of control of one third or more for certain purposes. Those provisions have worked satisfactorily in practice and have posed no difficulty for the industry or the Government.
    Amendment No. 8 would change the thrust of what I call the tailpiece to subsection (5), which provides that a company may exercise control for the purposes of part I,

    389
    even though it does not fulfil any of the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d), because it has the power to ensure that the affairs of the second company are conducted in accordance with its wishes. Amendment No. 8 makes that an additional rather than an alternative requirement. That would defeat the purpose of the test which looks to the realities of a company's circumstances rather than to its circumstances on paper.
    I confirm that there is an element of catch-all. We want to ensure that there are no difficulties or gaps, so that the proper protection of taxpayers' interests can be assured. It is better to have the Bill in its present form and to have the test as an alternative, although we hope to apply the other tests. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press the amendment.
    Mr. Rowlands: The definition of ownership here and the one third rule as provided in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 apply to completely different circumstances. I understand that the latter relates to the disposal of ownership of licences. I can see why there should be a provision to ensure that licences cannot be disposed of without the consent of a Minister. That is quite a different concept from creating a liability, which is one way in which to transfer a valuable asset. I should like to be clear that I have taken up the right reference. Governments have every right to know whether ownership changes and therefore to lay down a one third ownership rule, but we are talking about something quite different here.
    I shall not press our amendment, but I did not find the Minister's answer very satisfactory. He did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Billericay either. There are many joint ventures in the North sea oil industry and the definition of 50 per cent. or more would catch them. We shall not press the amendment, but not because we are satisfied with the Minister's response.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 9, in page 3, line 19, at
    beginning insert—
    '(1A) The Secretary of State shall not before 1st July 1988 give a notice under section 1(1) to a person within paragraph (d) or (e) of section 2(1) or paragraph (b) or (c) of section 2(2).
    (2A) Subject to subsection (4A), the Secretary of State shall not give a notice under section 1(1) in relation to an offshore installation to a person within paragraph (d) or (e) of section 2(1) if the Secretary of State has been and continues to be satisfied that adequate arrangements (including financial arrangements) have been made by a person or persons within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) to ensure that a satisfactory abandonment programme will be carried out.
    (3A) Subject to subsection (4A), the Secretary of State shall not give a notice under section 1(1) in relation to a submarine pipe-line to a person within paragraph (b) or (c) of section 2(2) if the Secretary of State has been and continues to be satisfied that adequate arrangements (including financial arrangements) have been made by a person or persons within paragraph (a) to ensure that a satisfactory abandonment programme will be carried out.
    (4A) Subsections (2A) and (3A) shall not apply if there has been a failure to comply with a notice under section 1(1) or if the Secretary of State has rejected a programme submitted in compliance with such a notice.'.
    No. 10, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'subsection (1) of section 1' and insert 'section 1(1)'.
    No. 11, in page 3, line 25, after 'give', insert
    `(subject to the preceding provisions of this section)'
    No. 12, in page 3, line 25, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'section 1(1)'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

  Clause 4

    APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMES
    Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
    '(3) Before approving a programme with modifications or subject to conditions which will allow an installation or pipeline or parts thereof to remain on the seabed the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself as to—

    (a) any potential effect of the programme on the safety of surface or subsurface navigation;

    (b) the rate of deterioration of the material left and its present and possible future effect on the marine environment;

    (c) the risk that the material left will shift from its position at some future time;

    (d) the costs, technical feasibility and risks of personal injury associated with removal of the installations or pipelines;

    (e) the potential assignment of liability from damages resulting from any installation or pipeline or part thereof left on the seabed;

    (f) the determination of a genuine new use or other reasonable justification for allowing the installation or pipeline or parts thereof to remain on the seabed, and

    (g) the identification of the party responsible for maintaining the aids to navigation deemed necessary to mark the position of any obstruction to navigation and for monitoring the condition of the remaining material.'.

    The contents of this amendment owe a great deal to a certain International Maritime Organisation document—NAV 33/WP. 4/REV1 dated 15 January. Some might call this plagiarism, but I would say that, in the context of this Bill and this debate, we had a borrowing requirement and we exercised it in a most sensible manner.
    Removal programmes will be costly and intricate. Experts in this sector have mentioned the finance involved in removing platforms. Incidentally, I have long argued that we should be talking in terms of total removal and not partial removal. An expert, Mr. N. G. Boyd of Taywood-Santa Fe Ltd. said:
    "The cost of totally removing a platform, taking account of inflation over say a 20 year life, may, in monetary terms, exceed the original capital cost of the installation and this cost will be incurred at a time when production and hence revenue has ceased."
    The activities involved in removal range from the preparatory work, the shutdown, the well plugging and abandonment down to the towing away and disposal of such installations and pipelines.
    It is reasonable to say that at this moment we do not have much experience of this form of maritime demolition work. I am right in saying that only one platform has so far been removed from United Kingdom waters. That was a small satellite platform that was situated in approximately 100 ft of water and had a jacket weight, complete with piles, of only 400 tonnes. The cost of the removal of that platform was reported at the time— 1978—to be about £2 million.
    One can imagine the cost of removing a structure of, say, 40,000 tonnes, situated in, for example, 500 ft of water. That would be an immensely costly business. However, in spite of those financial considerations and the inherent difficulties associated with removal and partial removal, we must, at all times, consider the interests of other maritime industries such as maritime transport and fishing. In that respect, paragraph (a) of our amendment emphasises the need for the Secretary of State to pay close

    391
    regard to the navigational implications of removal. I am not necessarily here talking of nuclear submarines, which are surely the most sinister vessels ever built in a shipyard.
    Paragraph (b) and subsections (c), (d) and (e) would, I am sure, be welcomed by fishermen throughout the United Kingdom and throughout the EEC's fishing nations.
    Paragraph (d) is concerned with deterioration of the material left on the seabed. I refer in this context to the potential dangers that are associated with toxic and hazardous chemicals and their effects upon marine life. Paragraphs (c) and (e) refer to:
    "the risk that the material left will shift from its position at some future time."
    Paragraph (e) refers to:
    "the potential assignment of liability from damages resulting from any installation or pipeline or part thereof left on the seabed."
    Those implications could be of critical importance to fishermen as they go about their lawful activities. Similarly, paragraph (b) emphasises the need, inter alia, to pay careful attention to the health and safety needs of those involved in what will be extremely complicated and potentially dangerous work.
    With regard to the health and safety needs of those involved in the demolition of the installations I should like to ask the Minister a question, to which perhaps I should know the answer. I am sure that he will give me the answer. Does the Explosives (Age of Purchase Etc.) Act 1976 extend to the use of explosives throughout the United Kingdom's territorial waters, and, if that is the case, can I take it as given that the Act extends to the carriage and use of explosives by foreign personnel on foreign registered vessels involved in, say, felling, or as some call it, toppling, a structure in United Kingdom waters?
    If the answer is in the affirmative, does the Minister and his Department envisage changes in the Explosives Act, the object of which would be to make that potentially hazardous occupation a little safer? I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those questions when he replies. I am sure that the officials in the Box have the answers at their finger tips. I have not, and I ask the question because, at this moment, there are few people—I am talking principally about the divers involved in the offshore oil and gas industries— who have wide experience of the use of explosives in deep waters.
    I am right in saying that the explosives that have been used to demolish wells have been used in vaporising them. I am sure that the Minister and his officials understand that term better than I do. I have been told by experts that vaporising wellheads and other subsea structures is a crude and inexact art. What is achieved, if that is the word, with this crude, inexact use of explosives is a scattering of debris in the area of the structure which is being dismantled. I have been told that in some cases even heavy explosive charges have been lowered down in wire baskets at the end of a long wire—it is a crude and inexact business—but the process has been wholly wasteful. I am given to understand that the Norwegians, once a well has been demolished by explosives, drag heavy trawling gear across the area of the installation, to ensure that the debris is at an acceptable level for the interests of the fishermen. I am sure that if I have got that wrong, the Minister will correct me. As I am sure that the Minister will agree, these are important questions, to which I shall refer on Third Reading.
    392
    Paragraph (g) acknowledges, reasonably, that pipe infrastructures may need to stay in place, since the existence of such infrastructures might well encourage the development of nearby fields. I refer the Minister to the debate that we had in Committee and to his positive contribution, in which he said that his Department was most interested in the use of artificial matting to cover over those sections of the pipeline that are subjected to natural phenomena such as scour.
    I may seem sceptical about the idea of changing these platforms into rafts or reefs for the growth and exploitation of shellfish colonies. Such a project may work successfully off the coastline of Alabama in the United States, but I am not sure that it would work off the coastline of Scotland. However, my mind is open enough to be dissuaded of my prejudice if possible.
    9 pm
    The last section points to the need to maintain navigational aids in perpetuity. The Minister may not be able to answer my next point because it may be the responsibility not of his Department but of that of the Secretary of State for Transport. The cost of these navigational aids might be partially met by the imposition of light dues. That question needs to be addressed.
    The monitoring of the remaining material will be a crucial issue for fishermen. Again, there are many implications. The amendment highlights some of the issues associated with the removals of platforms and pipelines. These issues are of considerable importance to other maritime industries, principally the fishing industry.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The amendment has a useful place in the debate because it details the heart of the dilemma of the Bill which, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, includes many unknowns, in terms of both costs and technology, that have not been explored fully. What follows on from the Bill will have to expand considerably from its basis. Both the users of the sea who might be affected by the partial removal of the platforms and the operators of platforms that will be removed need to know the implications and the ongoing liabilities, and where they stop and the lines are drawn. The amendment addresses itself to some of those problems, so it is useful to probe, for the record, the great deal of unfinished business that the Bill leaves. It has only begun to explore the process of what is involved.
    When the Bill becomes law, and the industry and the Government go on to try to work out the implications of removing installations, the debate will centre on the need to limit liability in terms of both space and time.
    Many of us believe that the total removal of a platform will always be the best possible solution if it is achievable within a realistic framework. if that course is followed, the problem of liability does not apply. The installation is removed and the sea bed, to all intents and purposes, is returned to normal. However, we all understand the difficulties and costs involved in the removal of platforms and we understand that these problems require us to consider the possibility of something less than partial removal.
    I must express concern that the worries of the people who installed the platforms in the first place must not be allowed in any way to modify the pressure for ensuring the most effective removal and monitoring of what remains. Cost considerations must obviously be taken into account.

    393
    However, these considerations must not be allowed to dilute the commitment to find ways, if possible, of removing platforms or making them acceptable and safe.
    The amendment identifies the problems that exist in breaking up, migrating and marking and, if damage occurs, of identifying liability. That point relates to amendment No. 1 moved by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). We must know what operators are liable for and the operators also need to know. Consortia change and we need to know whom to approach.
    If we could stick to the ideal principle of total removal, we would avoid those problems. However, I accept that it is sensible in this enabling Bill to allow for that possibility. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) may not necessarily believe that the amendment will be incorporated in the Bill. However, it is a marker which encapsulates the list of relevant problems and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that it addresses relevant considerations. The industry and the Department of Energy must come to grips with these problems.
    Once the Bill becomes law, I hope that the Minister will stimulate and, if necessary, commission more intensive research into identifying and dealing with these problems. Only in that context are we likely to modify or reassure the views of those people who arc rightly concerned about anything less than partial removal. At the moment I believe that those people are right to be worried. I can hardly blame them for standing out for total removal as the ideal way to solve the problem.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Throughout the early stages of this Bill, Opposition and Conservative Members identified areas of international law, international responsibilities, legal and moral responsibilities, areas of environmental concerns and areas of new technology and the possibilities which that new technology would bring to job prospects in the industry. At the moment, the industry has seen a great reduction in the number of people employed building structures for the North sea. We argued that those people might be usefully employed while we were deliberating in Committee on the training and procedures which the Bill would hopefully establish. We hoped that that training would be the responsibility of those who placed the structures and pipelines off our shores.
    In Committee we identified those responsibilities and there was much concern on the Government and Opposition Front Benches about the draconian character of parts of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister recalls the debate that he had with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rolands) about the draconian nature of clause 4 and the lack of arbitration which my hon. Friend explained had existed in previous legislation. When the Minister suggested that no criteria existed, my hon. Friend said that, if criteria were published, they might be the backcloth against which the Secretary of State's proposals could be decided. If his proposals were found to be too strong, those affected by his decisions who had stayed within the published criteria could be allowed arbitration. Now that criteria have come from the meeting of the International Maritime Organisation, will the Minister reconsider what he said about the draconian nature of clause 4? Does he believe that it would be right to provide for arbitration, given the criteria that now exist?
    394
    From reading the report of the Committee stage, when the Minister gave us an idea of how the International Maritime Organisation discussions had gone, and from an examination of the draft guidelines and standards which are contained in the document mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), one can see the hand of the Minister or his Department in those guidelines and standards. It might be useful to take a few minutes to examine some of the guidelines and standards and question the Minister to discover how he intends to pursue them. When he gave us an idea of what they were likely to be, it was against the background that the United Kingdom input into the discussions was along the lines outlined by the Minister during the debate.
    Although we could not participate in those discussions, it was as though there had been a fly on the wall of the Committee Room and a fly on the wall of the committee of the International Maritime Organisation. Both committees were determined to ensure that wherever and whenever possible we should return the environment to its natural state, or to as near a natural state as possible, before our structures and pipelines invaded that environment.
    It was right to pursue those matters in Committee and for us to suggest that the guidelines be incorporated in the Bill. Although, after listening to the Minister, we may decide not to push the amendment, perhaps it could be incorporated in a future licensing round or in a joint operating agreement between the Government and the operator.
    Another useful debate in Committee concerned the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who reminded us of his formative years as a junior construction engineer. He said that, had he been aware of his grave responsibility when he was involved in the nuclear industry, he might have taken a little more time in the construction of nuclear installations.
    9.15 pm
    My hon. Friend certainly gave us the benefit of his training. He said that, if one was ever in doubt about who was responsible for different parts of a project, one should consult the contract documents and in them one would find, set out quite clearly, the responsibility for each activity undertaken.
    The amendment, which has been drafted from the International Maritime Organisation's guidelines, gives the Minister some indication of how Opposition Members want him to approach future joint operating agreements and how we would like to see this legislation put into practice. Could the Minister tell us if he intends to pursue those areas in the IMO document which were not agreed and which are, therefore, in parentheses?
    For instance, paragraph 2.2 of the document refers to
    "The determination of any potential effect on … (the location of commercial fishing areas)".
    I should like to hear, as would the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, from the Minister if he intends to pursue this assiduously and to have the parentheses removed, so as to make this phrase part of the paragraph rather than something that is not agreed.
    In paragraph 2.3 we have a reference to monitoring parts of structures left on the seabed and their impact
    "on navigation (or the marine environment)".
    Once again, those words are in parentheses. We had a very long debate on the effects on the marine environment and

    395
    voiced our concern that it should be returned to as near its natural state as possible. Will the Minister assure us that he intends to have those parentheses removed and make the statement part of the general guidelines?
    Paragraph 3.4 says:
    "In situations where entire removal is technically unfeasible or would involve extreme cost, or an unacceptable risk to personnel or marine environment … the coastal state may determine that it need not be entirely removed."
    It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us just who would determine the criteria so that we knew exactly how he intended to pursue that clause in future discussions.
    The amendment offers the Minister an opportunity to make it quite clear that the success enjoyed by his representatives at the IMO meeting will be built on, and also to indicate to the industry and those outside who are listening to our debate that he is determined to ensure that when all this is over we shall return the environment as nearly as possible to its previous state.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: I am grateful to my two hon. Friends who have demonstrated that the Opposition has reached international standards in drafting an amendment; as the Minister will perceive, our amendment is very much a response to the expertise and involvement of the International Maritime Organisation.
    The amendment is very important and, although we will not spend very much time on this debate, it is right that we ask the Minister, if he disagrees with the amendment, to tell us in precise detail where his disagreements lie. Is there any part of the amendment with which he disagrees?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is right to press the point that we must leave the environment in decent order. As chairman of the Council of Europe's committee for the environment, I would hate to think that all the work that we have done here would lead to my committee receiving complaints from another national assembly about the responsibilities of Britain not being properly exercised. The Minister must respond positively to the amendment.
    The Minister may feel it impossible to accept the amendment as it stands, but many interest groups and the industry need to know where the Government stand. Some other member states of the International Maritime Organisation have been more precise. The Soviet Union takes the view that there should be no exemption to the 300 m depth limit. France and the United States of America do not wish to see many exceptions to the general rule. We are not sure where the Government stand. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) would prefer total removal, but he is realistic. We need to know how much realism the Government will show. So my hon. Friends are entitled to ask these questions, and the amendment is justified.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), in a brief but substantial contribution, reminded the House of the enormous costs involved. He also reminded us of the substantial risks which the fishing industry could face if the Government do not apply satisfactory standards. As a Member sponsored by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, a small but important union whose members are trained and frequently use explosives, I have not yet heard that the Department has consulted my trade union about the use of explosives in
    396
    industry. Certainly I am worried about the concept of vaporisation. My hon. Friend caused several of us to be anxious; his fears may need less relief than mine.
    Dr. Godman: I am sorry if I gave my hon. Friend the vapours. No doubt he will readily acknowledge that there is a world of difference between using controlled explosives in a coal mine, although there are dangers there, and using explosives to remove structures several hundred feet below the surface of the sea.
    Mr. Hardy: I accept that. I was coming to the point that there are very strict controls on the use of explosives in collieries. The point that my hon. Friend made about vaporisation suggests that there must be strict controls on the use of explosives offshore. I hope that the Minister has received adequate advice on the matter.
    We have not spent long on the amendment, but the Minister must recognise that we need to know where the Government stand. The industry is entitled to know that, and the House certainly is. While the Minister may not be prepared to accept the amendment, I am sure that he will agree, in view of our consideration of the matter in Committee, that the House should have not necessarily a long response but one that is firm, positive and clear.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that, when the amendment appeared on the Order Paper it did not take long to trace its parentage. One should always be proud of one's children. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman no doubt felt it worth while to expose the amendment to the full light of scrutiny in the House.
    I address one word of caution particularly to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) who is perhaps interpreting the IMO document too widely. If he had considered the whole document, he would have noticed that what is in the body of the amendment is referred to in the document as "preliminary draft guidelines". No phraseology could be more tentative. The hon. Gentleman should have read further into that document. He asked me whether I would also adopt the parts of the document that are in parentheses. If he had read a bit further, he would have discovered that those parts are in parentheses because they were believed to be beyond the competence of the sub-committee that was considering the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not found too much on this point.
    The work of the IMO is important, but as it and the sub-committee acknowledged, it deals primarily with navigation. There will be discussion in other interanational forums about matters other than navigation, important though it is. When we looked at this in Committee, we recognised that navigation is important and that it underlies the policies followed in the IMO, in the United States and in the Soviet Union.
    This is an important document and my officials took part in its preparation. It is obviously at an early stage of consideration and has many more processes to go through over a considerable time. It is a good starting point and I commend the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for choosing a topic that helps to concentrate our minds on the way we should approach these issues. As we have all recognised from the beginning, and as I have never sought to hide from the House, the Bill is simply a beginning, a framework. That is because we are preparing for a situation which probably will not arise on any scale until the mid–1990s.

    397
    Some people may say that it is unnecessary to bring in such provisions as early as this. That is a wrong approach. It is necessary to start to concentrate people's minds now, because there is a great deal of work to be done. I have never tried to make any apology for bringing in these provisions so early even though some of the Bill's provisions, especially clause 11 which we are discussing, are tentative. That is because there is so much work to be done. The international regulations on which the amendments are based will be subject to a great deal of refinement and once they are agreed the Government will have to observe them. They will become a major part of the conditions; hence one of the reasons for the general nature of clause 11. It will enable us to provide a flexible system which can change over time to meet, perhaps, even developments at international level.
    I hope that the House recognises that this is a realistic and practical approach. In clause 11(2) we have sought to describe the main areas that we think the regulations should cover. We have been careful in the wording of that clause, without prejudice to the generality of clause 11(1). That leaves us with enormous room, so that if other circumstances arise, they can at least be covered. The Committee broadly welcomed what we sought to specify in clause 11— broad headings and broad categories, which I hope cover most of the points raised in this debate and in committee. The effect on navigation underlies the IMO document and, of course, we are bound under international obligations to take account of standards and safety regulations.
    The deterioration of material and its effect on the marine environment has already been covered to some extent in clause 11(2)(c) in its provisions for the prevention of pollution. At the same time we have—this is important because it underlines the preliminary nature of the Bill—embarked upon an extensive research and development programme. The House will be aware that the research and development programme is being sponsored by the Science and Engineering Research Council and my Department is playing a considerable role in that programme. It is examining the effects on the environment, including the fisheries criteria. Therefore. we already have work under way in this important area.
    9.30 pm
    Matters of personal injury are obviously important and there is a question of prescribing under clause 11(2)(a), standards and safety requirements. Of course, that is important in any circumstance and not just in the instance of abandonment. It may require special provisions, but there can be regulations under this clause.
    I want to reassure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that there is a full weight of offshore safety regulations and that these will remain in force while the dismantling takes place. I am glad to have had the opportunity to say that those regulations already exist in addition to what may be introduced as a result of this legislation.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) laid particular emphasis—again, rightly so—on liability for damage. That is something that the oil companies will have to address and obviously that will have a certain relevance in relation to costs. Such things are covered by the provisions relating to standards of inspection but there could be a provision in a programme for monitoring. Therefore, any liabilities for something that is left only
    398
    partially removed could be covered within that programme should the Secretary of State so require. Therefore, the House is absolutely right to draw attention to that, and it may well be something that the industry, in the years ahead, will need to consider in the overall costs of an abandonment. in whatever form. Again, that is adequately covered by the umbrella nature of the regulations that will be brought in later under clause 11.
    We have had a good opportunity yet again this evening to go over all the main areas of importance. None of them are exclusive to each other, but each has a different importance attached to it and is important to different interests. We must think not only of the interest of the oil industry and the costs that may be involved but of the many other matters covered in the amendment and clause 11, which provides an opportunity for full account to be taken of the other users of the sea whether navigators, fishermen or anyone else.
    I welcome this opportunity to reiterate that all the issues are important. When standards are worked out, whether they are the result of a research and development programme—for example, the use of explosives—or of the international standards to which this amendment is specifically drawn, or whether they relate to some of the interests of the other users of the sea covered under the regulation-making powers of clause 11. I hope that we have made provision, at this early stage, to ensure that all those important points are covered.
    I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for giving us another opportunity, finally to debate all these important subjects.
    Dr. Godman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 5

    FAILURE TO SUBMIT PROGRAMMES
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 13, leave out from 'sum' to 'for' in line 14.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15, 19 and 20.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), with his customary assiduity, drew attention in Committee to the interest that may be charged on any sum that is outstanding where the Secretary of State has prepared an abandonment programme, and said that it should be a commercial rate. Although I was unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment at that stage, I undertook to consider the matter further and, hopefully, to make the wording more precise. I have done that, and a similar point arises in relation to clause 9.
    In considering the amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will perhaps feel that he has got two for the price of one and that that will be some consolation for the fact that I did not respond more positively to the earlier amendment that he moved.
    Mr. Hardy: I wish briefly to express my appreciation to the Minister. The Department of Energy obviously has an interest in the matter as we were seeking to protect the Secretary of State for Energy from some of the ravaging

    399
    demands made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that interest rates are already, sadly, very high and gravely burdensome in Britain. However, it may be that the industry would rather pay the commercial interest rate than a charge which a rather rapacious Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to levy in some future year when the Government's coffers are not quite so swollen with the results of privatisation.
    It would be churlish of me to continue and, in any case, we do not have the time. However, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. We accept the amendment with considerable pleasure.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 15, in page 4, line 16, at end insert—
    '(5A) The rate of interest payable in accordance with subsection (5) shall be a rate determined by the Secretary of State as comparable with commercial rates.'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

  Clause 6

    REVISION OF PROGRAMMES
    Amendments made: No. 16, in page 4, line 37, leave out 'or (d)' and insert (d) or (e)'.
    No. 17, in page 4, line 45, at end add—
    '(2A) The Secretary of State shall not propose that a person who is or has been within paragraph (d) or (e) (but no other paragraph) of section 2(1) or paragraph (b) or (c) (but not paragraph (a)) of section 2(2) shall have a duty to secure that a programme is carried out unless it appears to the Secretary of State that a person already under that duty has failed or may fail to discharge it.'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

  Clause 9

    DEFAULT IN CARRYING OUT PROGRAMMES
    Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, line 49, leave out from 'sum' to 'for' in line 50.
    No. 20, in page 5, line 52, at end insert—
    '(4A) The rate of interest payable in accordance with subsection (4) shall be a rate determined by the Secretary of State as comparable with commercial rates.'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

  Schedule 1

    AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LICENCES
    Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 19, line 22, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) when to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 23, line 3, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) when to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 24, in schedule 2, page 32, line 25, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) when to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 25, in page 28, line 14, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 26, in page 29, line 39, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than

    401
    that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 27, in page 30, line 12, at end insert—
    (1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 28, in page 26, line 26, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 29, in schedule 2, page 31, line 48, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987;

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to he installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    No. 30, in page 34, line 14, at end insert—
    '(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—

    (a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;

    (b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987;

    (c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing
    402
    appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

    Mr. Hardy: I hope that the Minister does not think that I am ignoring the pretty full response that he offered at our last sitting in Committee, when he responded to a series of amendments which I had tabled to deal with the question of measurement. His response then was extremely interesting. However, I think that the Minister will understand that he is dealing with a complex and important matter and that he may welcome the brief opportunity to reassure the industry a little more fully and perhaps in a little more detail as to the effect which the provisions of schedules 1 and 2 would have in relation to measurement, especially on the question of the development of satellite platforms, which are essentially unmanned and which therefore cannot have separation and measurement equipment upon them. That was the basis of my concern in Committee.
    The Minister will understand that if we are to seek the 625 trillion cu ft that was identified as an alternative to the purchase of the Norwegian Sleipner gas, satellite platform development may be essential. Therefore, it is right that we have tabled amendments to deal with this subject. The Minister knows that we shall not press them to a Division. However, I hope that he will accept that the amendments have been tabled so that a proper assurance can be given and so that the oil and gas industries will know that they have the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House for a proper policy of adequate extraction of our offshore reserves. It would be frightful if reserves were riot properly exploited but were left sterile, never to be tapped, because of the short-sighted fiscal arrangements.
    The industry should be assured that the arrangements will not be short-sighted and that proper management of our offshore reserves will be maintained. We have tabled the amendments to give the Minister a chance to offer the industry reassurance because the hesitation which may have been involved in the Bill initially could well have aroused anxiety which should not be fostered. The Minister might like to take this opportunity to relieve and remove those anxieties.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in the spirit in which he moved the amendment. I recognise, as I did in Committee, that there is anxiety about this, in particular about the effect that the provisions in the Bill as drafted may have on satellite developments which in the years ahead could prove, and indeed are already proving, a useful source of development in the North sea, and about ensuring that we exploit our resources to the full. I consulted the industry and had discussions with individual Members on this, as my officials have. I believe that we have met their anxieties, but it may be helpful quickly to go over some of those points tonight.
    First, I should make an important preliminary point which must not be overlooked. Although these provisions apply to existing licences, they are not automatic requirements. They apply only if a direction is given by the Secretary of State, and it is important to remember that. Perhaps we did not dwell sufficiently on that point in Committee.
    The amendment highlights particular points of concern, and perhaps by taking the amendment I can give

    403
    the assurances that he seeks. Paragraph (a) in each of the amendments seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from giving a direction when to do so would impose an "unreasonable economic burden". I said in Committee, and I repeat tonight, that these provisions will be applied with full regard to economic considerations. It is self-evident that it would not be in the interests of the Department to discourage development; instead, we must seek to encourage it, as we have always done.
    Paragraph (b) seeks to prevent the new arrangements applying in respect of part of an oilfield. In certain circumstances that may be necessary, but broadly the intention is to continue to accept unitisation agreements where a field straddling two or more licensed areas is worked and developed as a unit, and the licensees' shares of petroleum won and saved are determined by application of agreed unitisation factors to the quantity measured for the field as a whole.
    Paragraph (c) seeks to ensure that the new arrangements may not be applied in respect of existing installations. As I have said, there is no intention to alter the method agreed for an existing field, except where it is proposed to make use of an existing field's facilities in measuring petroleum won and saved from another field.
    As I have made clear to the industry, and endeavour to make clear to the House again tonight, we are not seeking to apply some elaborate gold-plated standards of measurement for the sake of it. The provisions will be applied consistently with our general philosophy of ensuring that worthwhile developments can go ahead while revenues are protected. My Department's gas and oil measurement branch works closely and regularly on a practical level, not only with UKOOA, which has raised some of these anxieties, but with the Institute of Petroleum and individual oil companies on developments in good oilfield practice in these times of rapidly changing technology. I assure the House that we shall certainly always have regard both to good oilfield practice and to economic considerations.
    I hope that with this opportunity to repeat those assurances, perhaps even more specifically than I have done previously, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I thank him for the opportunity to repeat them again.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister will recognise that I am grateful for those assurances which will be looked at closely by the industry. I certainly accept his point about unitisation and he was right to make it as clearly and specifically as he did. We are completely reassured about the arrangements for two separate fields. However, I have a remaining anxiety. I shall not press the Minister to respond to it this evening, but I hope that he will attend carefully to it. My anxiety may not be justified. I do not claim to be a professional geologist and I have no claims to whatever other professional qualifications proliferate for offshore discovery, development and technology.
    The remaining anxiety related to the possible position of one field. One field may consist of many reservoirs. Given the small fields, particularly the small gas fields that must be developed without crossing the interests of one field or another, the development of satellite platforms may require a more positive system of approval than so far is envisaged. I am glad to note from the Minister's
    404
    comments that it seems to be clear that the Department of Energy does not intend to adopt such a system of measurement requirement or fiscal regulation as would prevent use of satellite platforms.
    9.45 pm
    Given that remaining anxiety, which may be worth another examination by the Department between now and the time that the Bill reaches the other place, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for the detailed response that he offered in Committee and for his further response— which I am sure he will agree was better made this evening— to relieve the remaining anxieties within the industry, which faces considerable problems in regard to abandonment programmes.
    It was rather sad that an important piece of legislation concerned with abandonment should also have had schedules cluttered up with almost incomprehensible terminology about taxation and measurement. It may have been better to introduce a small Bill on a rather more leisurely basis in regard to this draconian measure. I quote the word "draconian" from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. West (Mr. Ross). It was used frequently in Committee and on Second Reading. I am glad that the Government will not be quite so draconian about measurement.
    I am obliged to the Minister for the explanation and assurance that he offered to the House, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    9.48 pm
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have reached the final stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, subject to anything that may happen in another place. In some ways it has been a strange Bill with which to work. We are dealing not with a future hypothetical situation but with one that will arise and about which many understandable uncertainties have been expressed. Ours will be one of the first major offshore areas in which abandonment of installations is likely to arise. To that extent we are treading new ground and preparing a new road. The Bill has meant that we have had wide debates. It has allowed many diverse considerations to be involved. None the less, I express my thanks to all those who participated in the debates. We have accepted not only the challenge of preparing for the 1990s, but the difficulties in which we labour. We have also sought to provide a structure for abandonment when, in many ways, if we had had the necessary knowledge and experience, it would have been more satisfying to be able also to legislate for the details of abandonment. None the less, we were right to proceed with the Bill in this way.
    We are dealing with a large and important sector of the British economy. It is important that the industry knows in what conditions and framework it must work. The Bill also underlines the opportunity taken to update legislation. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned, the Bill has given us an opportunity to deal with matters such as measurement.
    The Bill highlights and demonstrates the continuing need for co-operation between the Government and industry. This Bill simply provides a framework. I hope

    405
    that the co-operation that there has been over its drafting and during its parliamentary stages, including the constructive changes that have been introduced with the approval of both sides of the House, will continue when the important regulations and international standards have to be drawn up before we tackle the first abandonment. The international background will be of particular importance.
    I hope that research and development will continue on a satisfactory basis. We do not yet know enough about how some of the abandonment procedures will be carried out, or about their effect on the environment. This programme has therefore been embarked upon and I hope that details will emerge from it as to how to frame the regulations.
    We are referring to a national resource that lies under the sea. The sea is used by many other people for thoroughly legitimate and long-standing purposes, such as navigation and fishing. A great deal of consultation went into the preparation of the Bill. I urge all those who are involved— the oil industry, shipping and navigational interests and the fishing industry— to continue to co-operate so that conflict can be avoided and to ensure that we make the best possible use of these resources for the nation as a whole.
    9.52 pm
    Mr. Rowlands: I echo and second many of the Minister's sentiments. It was the ancient scholar Livy who observed that laws are as mortal as man. For the last five or six years the Minister and I have debated many measures. In most cases, the lines have been drawn and the trenches have been dug. Eventually we have been guillotined and the Government have had their Bills. I hope that some of those Acts will not be immortal. However, there was genuine co-operation over this Bill. We are trying to anticipate a problem that will arise in the next decade or so. Some of us may still he Members of Parliament when the first abandonment takes place, and we have begun a legislative process to prepare for that day. The good boy scouts' principle lies behind the Bill: to be prepared in good time for the day when we have to tackle the enormous problems surrounding the abandonment of these North sea installations.
    When we began consideration of this Bill, we faced the nightmarish concept of leaving behind in the deepest North sea large physical structures, sawn off below the waterline, that could cause considerable concern to fishermen, mariners and navigational interests. We have been debating how to provide an international framework of standards as well as a national set of regulations to deal with the abandonment of important installations.
    I do not want to be too philosophical, but man is transient. So, too, are Governments. Sometimes we abuse the environment and our resources. We must ensure that having enjoyed the fruits of the North sea, in terms of the minerals that have been won and the oil and gas that have been delivered, we leave the North sea in the best possible condition and ensure that it is compatible with environmental standards of the highest quality. That has been behind much of our argument. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Bill because we have had a genuinely consultative process and the Bill has changed a lot as a result. We give the Bill our full support.
    9.54 pm
    Mr. Proctor: I congratulate the Government on introducing what has readily been regarded as a timely measure. By addressing the future now, they have cleared away a great deal of uncertainty among the industry and other interested parties.
    This is an important Bill. We are concerned with expenditure of between £5 billion and £6 billion and the abandonment of 160 installations and associated pipeline activities. The Bill is important because of our international obligations in this respect. It is important to ensure that the burden does not fall on taxpayers. The Bill is important for fishing and navigational interests and for the oil industry. I am glad that my right hon. Friend stressed the continuing importance of the oil industry to prosperity and growth in the economy.
    As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhyrmney (Mr. Rowlands) said, this was a truly consultative and co-operative effort. The Bill is now much better than when we discussed it on Second Reading. Much of the reason for that is my right hon. Friend, and our thanks go to him for piloting it through so well.
    9.56 pm
    Mr. Bruce: I welcome the tone and content of the Minister's speech. It is important that people realise that the Bill puts down markers for the future. It would be wrong to assume that Parliament has taken a clear view on the best way Toward, as we do not have the information to do that.
    We have set the framework within which to approach problems. It is important to give the Bill a Third Reading in that spirit. There are problems which must be dealt with and we need a framework for that. As the Minister said, we must increase research and development and consider the possible impact of abandonment before we can make a decision.
    I still believe that less than total removal would be a concession. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) paraphrased me by saying, that might turn out to be a realistic concession because all interested parties believe that it is sensible. As long as people understand that we have established a framework and nobody assumes that their solution has been endorsed and act on that basis, we will have started down the right road.
    It is important that people who are concerned with how we remove installations do not believe that Parliament has given them any exemptions from dealing with the matter comprehensively. The Minister knows that all interested parties will examine the regulations closely. It is essential that everybody is consulted and carried before any regulations are imposed.
    With those qualifications in mind, I am happy to endorse the Bill and look forward with interest to see how this major issue develops.
    9.58 pm
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I want to push him even at this late stage to gather research and development findings which emerge during the next few years. We are at the very forefront of this new technology and if British industry and technology are to advance there must be some determination to gather such experience.

    407
    It is clear that, unless we are outbid by the Japanese or a large American multinational, we may have to co-operate with our European partners to get contracts. It is certainly true that British business men will have to co-operate. We are talking about large sums of money and the removal, or partial removal, of these structures. Companies will be concerned, because it is new technology, and they will wish to ensure that company confidentiality is maintained. The Minister should establish a central gathering area.
    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for Third Reading stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Petroleum Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]
  10 pm
  Dr. Godman: I welcome the early introduction of the measure. While I accept that maritime demolition work will not start until the 1990s, we need to prepare in a sensible and realistic way. I acknowledge that some research work is being carried out, but more needs to be done. The work of removal will be highly technical, costly and, for some, potentially hazardous.
  The marine environment should be restored to its former condition in the interests of the fishermen of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, there are potentially exciting employment opportunities here. It is essential that we grab those opportunities, particularly in Scotland. Here we can talk of construction as well as maritime demolition in terms of the construction of crane barges, barges to transport sections to the shore, tugs and other ancillary vessels and structures. We must not allow foreign firms to dominate the novel work of maritime demolition. It has been a pleasure to welcome the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Housing (Scotland)
10.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the second order:
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
and the prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 11), dated 7th January 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January be annulled.
Mr. Ancram: Full details of the Housing Support Grant settlement are set out in the report.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it necessary to take all the orders together? Is it possible to take them separately?
Mr. Speaker: I put this to the House at the beginning.
Mr. Foulkes: I did not hear you.
Mr. Speaker: I certainly put it to the House. The House agreed that that should be done. The Minister is already on his feet.
Mr. Ancram: Full details of the Housing Support Grant settlement are set out in the report which accompanies the draft Housing Support Grant Order. In view of the time limit on the debate, I shall not burden the House with excessive detail. I shall explain the thinking behind these proposals and the limits that have been set out in the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order.
We have reached agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the formula for the distribution of housing support grant this year. I should like to place on record our thanks to the convention for its contribution to our discussion.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has just put on record his grateful thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Is that the same COSLA that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an arrogant and impudent speech earlier this evening, described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour party?
Mr. Ancram: Whatever COSLA may or may not be, the discussions that we have had on the formula and the contributions that it made to those discussions were constructive and useful. Therefore, it is only right that in this instance I should record my appreciation of COSLA's part in them.
In the housing support grant settlement for 1987–88, the Government have aimed again at concentrating resources on those authorities which, in our view, require them. We have estimated eligible expenditure at £288·5 million and relevant income at £242 million. Housing support grant will therefore total £46·5 million. This will be distributed among the 25 authorities which we believe will incur deficits on their housing revenue accounts in 1987–88.
410
I should explain to the House that in response to representations by a number of authorities and hon. Members, and with the agreement of the convention, we have made a major change in this year's grant formula. Since the inception of HSG, the formula has incorporated a notional per head income amount on the income side of the equation to represent rate fund contributions to authorities' housing revenue accounts. Since 1985–86, however, the Secretary of State has used his statutory power to set limits on the amounts of rate fund contribution for which authorities may estimate. The notional amounts in the HSG formula, for that reason, have moved out of line with actual rate fund contributions. As a result, some authorities have received less grant, and others more, than had actual rate fund contribution figures been used. Overall, authorities as a whole benefited from the previous formula, but for 1987–88, if we continued to follow this approach, authorities would in total have received less than the figure arrived at using "real" RFC limits. For 1987–88, therefore, we have incorporated in the HSG formula a rate fund contribution figure for each authority based on a pro rata distribution of £30 million across Scotland according to council house stock numbers, or the authority's 1986–87 statutory rate fund contribution limit, whichever is the lower.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I urge the Minister to give the most sympathetic consideration to Inverclyde district council, given the massive unemployment and housing problems with which it is afflicted.
Mr. Ancram: I know that the hon. Gentleman on all these occasions obviously and understandably presses the interests of Inverclyde district council. In the change in the formula that we have made, it is generally accepted that we are now working on a more realistic basis. In this year's settlement we have reached a position which is more favourable than it would have been overall had we not made the change in the formula. We have answered the legitimate concerns which have been expressed to us in previous years by certain district councils which felt that they were losing out by what had by that time effectively become an artificial assumption within the formula.
Mr. John Maxton: Rather than fudging around with a lot of phoney language in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), would the Minister make it clear to him that Inverclyde district council will receive no housing support grant whatsoever this year?
Mr. Ancram: The point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) fails to appreciate is that we work by a formula. If he consulted his friends in COSLA, he would find that they agreed that this formula change should be made because, overall, it produced a more beneficial effect. Within a formula there will obviously be those who gain and those who lose.
Dr. Godman: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, the Minister must surely acknowledge the massive problems that face Inverclyde district council? I am not worried about the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and lnverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). Inverclyde district council faces massive

411
problems. Its unemployment continues to rise remorselessly. The Minister knows that. I am making a plea for help for that council.
Mr. Ancram: We operate housing support grant on a formula, and I could not treat Inverclyde outside that formula.
Mr. Maxton: Oh, come on.
Mr. Ancram: I rather suspect that if the hon. Gentleman were ever, unlikely though it may be, to find himself with my responsibilities, he would find that where there is a formula that requires to be applied, he has to apply it. That is what is happening here.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Foulkes: That must mean me.
Mr. Forsyth: Will the formula take account of large numbers of empty houses? I cannot speak for Inverclyde, but I think that it has more than its fair share of houses that Labour authorities continue to leave vacant.
Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. However, the formula is not as sensitive as that. It deals with the stock held by the council, whether that stock is occupied or empty. It is important for Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, to appreciate that a formula improvement that takes account of real rate fund contributions as opposed to assumptions is better than the previous formula. I rather suspect that some Labour Members representing district councils will agree with that. In the case of certain councils, I am sure that the line that has been taken by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will not be acceptable. I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I am not asking for special consideration for Cumnock and Doon Valley in the formula. We are saying that not enough money is available to maintain houses either through housing support grant or the rate fund contribution. This is a cut in funding.
Does the Minister recall that I sent him a letter and a survey carried out by the Dalmellington tenants association, which showed the number of houses needing repairs and the number of houses with dampness? Will he admit that Cumnock and Doon Valley is not being permitted enough funds to enable it to carry out proper repairs?
Mr. Forsyth: Give way.
Mr. Foulkes: I wish that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would shut up. He is rabbiting on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) has crept into the debate at last.
Will the Minister admit that, if the money were available to Cumnock and Doon Valley district council, the housing at Dalmellington would be properly upgraded
412
and maintained, and any that were empty would be immediately snapped up? The council is unable to do that because the Minister is cutting its allocation.
Mr. Ancram: I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. Gentleman said. On occasions, I have to call him my hon. Friend, for reasons into which we need not go.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Foulkes: I make it clear that this is because I am a Quaker.
Mr. Ancram: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's allegation. I received his letter, and I am concerned about the structural problems in the housing stock of Cumnock and Doon Valley and the problems of dampness and condensation. I am sure that he was as appreciative as his council when its HRA allocation, which deals with the public sector stock, was increased by the extraordinary amount of 31 per cent. this year. How he can make these allegations, I fail to understand, unless his council has not yet informed him of the provisional allocation that it has received. I shall carry on because certain of his other points will be answered by what I say.
The end result of the formula change is that all authorities in HSG will benefit in 1987–88. Aggregate grant is £2 million higher than in the current year and £16 million higher than if we continued with the previous formula. I would have thought that for that reason, if for no other, local authorities, quite apart from COSLA, would welcome the change in the formula.
Mr. Maxton: Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point for the record. I think that he is a man who believes in some truth. Would it be better if he compared last year's housing support grant order in terms of money with this one? In that case, of course. there is a reduction of more than £4 million.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is due to the variation that occurs as a result of changes in the interest rates. The real figure for the housing budgets of councils is affected if interest charges are lower than was expected. If interest rates moved in the opposite direction, I suspect that if I was to suggest that the amounts were higher because of that, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to challenge me. It is right that 1 should consider the figures after the interest rates are taken into account rather than to play with them in the way in which the hon. Member for Cathcart is playing with them.
The point about which Opposition Members cannot argue is that a formula which produces about £16 million more than the previous formula must be acceptable, and in general terms, I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome that, although I accept that at times we are surprised by the Opposition's response.
Local authorities' expenditure on housing is, of course, very sensitive to changes in interest rates and we are again applying an average rate of interest to authorities' individual volumes of debt— 10·4 per cent. has been assumed in this settlement. If, however, in practice, interest rates prove to be significantly different from our current assumptions, we will bring forward an appropriate variation order in due course. The 1986–87 variation order before the House today reflects a similar undertaking given at this time last year. Because average pool interest rates have fallen from 11 per cent. to 10·6 per cent. during

413
the year, HSG, as the hon. Member for Cathcart explained, is reduced for this year by £6·2 million to a revised amount of £44·5 million.
The figures in the housing support grant orders reflect our continuing concern to balance the undoubted need for expenditure on housing against our responsibility to control public expenditure as a whole. This is particularly the case in the amounts that we have allowed for management and maintenance expenditure. We are at present. in conjunction with the convention, involved in a review of these allowances. But, for 1987–88, we have uprated the management and maintenance provision in the 1986–87 settlement by 7 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation. Rightly we believe that to be generous. In the light of present inflation rates, that should allow some real growth on repairs expenditure. The new figure is £303 per house—a total of £253 million.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister accept that many authorities, including West Lothian, are now becoming deeply worried about the problems of rewiring as the housing stock reaches a certain age? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has given the figure of 118,200 houses which need rewiring. Do the Government dispute the COSLA figures? I recognise that this is a difficult problem.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that COSLA set out a series of figures which I have not been prepared to accept and have asked COSLA to justify. I believe that there has been a degree of double counting.
Mr. Maxton: Of course there has.
Mr. Ancram: I wish that the hon. Member for Cathcart would stop muttering, "Of course there has been a degree of double counting." It took me six months to get him to admit that double counting had occurred in the first place.
We are all concerned to try to discover the real extent of need in Scottish housing and to meet that within the available resources. I will consider the question of capital allocations that I have made available this year in due course.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Briefly, in the light of the Minister's comments about the level of investment required and the doubt that exists within his Department about the COSLA figures, will he respond positively to the request made by COSLA in December for a working party of officials to examine some of the problems on a joint basis and provide figures about which we can all agree?
Mr. Ancram: I have told COSLA that I do not rule out the possibility of joint discussions at an official level. COSLA issued a series of figures last year and I have made a detailed response to them. I said that before we had joint discussions, I wanted to receive and consider COSLA's reaction to my response. That is a fair position for me to hold.
On the income side, we are assuming for the purposes of the settlement that rents will increase by £2 per week over 1986–87 order levels, bringing rents to £15·85 in order terms. Taking these housing support grant assumptions together with the Government's decisions on rate fund contribution limits, with which I will deal shortly, we estimate that average council house rents will rise by about
414
£1·32 per house per week in 1987–88. This will result in an average weekly rent for Scottish local authorities of about £14·34 per week.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ancram: This is a short debate and I have been very generous in giving way. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later in my remarks, I shall give way then.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Ancram: I shall return to rents later in my speech and, depending on the time available, if the h on. Gentleman wishes to intervene then, I shall consider giving way to him.
Let me turn now to the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1987. It is right to consider this order at the same time as the housing support grant orders, because they all directly affect the income side of authorities' housing revenue accounts.
The Government must take difficult decisions about the total resources which the country can afford to devote to housing, against the competing pressures on public expenditure as a whole. Although I am pleased to have been able to increase housing support grant because of the formula change, as I have already outlined our policy continues to be to reduce indiscriminate subsidies to enable us to devote greater resources to investment in the general housing stock.
Between 1981 and 1985 many authorities, by keeping rents unnecessarily and artificially low, and by requiring ever higher contributions from ratepayers to balance their housing revenue accounts, chose to forfeit £112 million of capital expenditure consents which could and should have been used to carry out modernisations, to deal with dampness, condensation and similar problems. However, since we took the statutory power to limit rate fund contributions, first exercised in 1985–86, this trend has been reversed. We have reduced the RFC aggregate from a non-statutory advisory limit of £120 million in 1984–85 to £43·7 million for 1987–88, as set out in the order before the House tonight. We have increased capital allocations on the HRA block each year by more than the RFC reductions required. For 1987–88, for example, the RFC limit aggregate is £26 million lower than for 1986–87, and this has contributed to a £40 million increase in the provisional HRA allocations next year as compared with 1986–87. The HRA allocation, at £362 million, is for the third year running substantially up in real terms. During the three years, the increase has been £135 million, or very nearly 60 per cent. over the level of three years ago.
Next year's allocations will again be augmented by authorities' ability automatically to carry forward underspends of up to 3·5 per cent. of the issued allocations. But capital allocations alone no longer provide a comprehensive picture of investment in council housing. As a result of the covenant scheme facility which we have temporarily made available, mainstream capital investment is likely to be boosted next year by a further £60 million and £215 million in total during the next three to four years. Investment in the Scottish council housing stock in 1987–88 will, therefore, be about £100 million, or over 30 per cent., higher than in the current year. Indeed, the increase over just three years is approaching 90 per

415
cent. and clearly demonstrates the Government's concern to enable the real problems in the housing stock to be tackled. I have to say that if today's problems are the legacy of past underinvestment and lack of proper repair and maintenance, a great deal of responsibility for those problems must lie with those who made policy between 1974 and 1979. [Laughter.] Oppositions Members laugh.
When the Labour party last held office, capital investment in Scottish housing by public agencies—the local authorities, the Housing Corporation, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new towns—fell in real terms by a massive and damaging 37 per cent. Since this Government came to office, we have turned the tide such that the figures for next year represent a real term increase of over 5 per cent. since 1979. That is the measure of the Government's commitment to dealing with Scotland's housing problems.
In setting an aggregate limit to rate fund contributions of £43·7 million, we have consulted widely about the implications of the individual limits set. The distribution of this aggregate took account, initially, of the number of council houses in each authority. We subsequently invited representations and considered carefully the implied rent increase and rent level in 1987–88 in each authority. As a result of those representations, we made upward adjustments for six of those authorities. Of course, rent implications for the 56 housing authorities vary widely. We took the view that rate fund contributions should be set so that, on the basis of reasonable assumptions on expenditure, individual authorities' average rent increases need not be higher than £2 per week and that no authority—
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Ancram:—should be required to raise its average rent level to more than £17·15per week.
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give way just once more in a moment.
In this calculation we again assumed that authorities would spend 7 per cent. more on management and maintenance than last year. As a result, we calculate that the average rent increase next year will be about £1·32 per week.
Mr. Foulkes: On the £1·32 per week rent increase, could the Minister express that as a percentage? Could he confirm that the average percentage increase is well in excess of 10 per cent.? Since inflation and wage increases are well below that, how does he expect the ordinary council house tenant to be able to pay for that huge rent increase?
Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am about to come to the point of percentages in comparative terms. The effect of our decisions in these orders on Cumnock and Doon Valley would be an estimated rent increase of just above the average that I have given.
Mr. Foulkes: How are they going to pay for it?
Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just bear with me.
I expect we shall hear some exaggerated claims from Opposition Members about the effect of these limits upon rent levels. It is worth looking at what has happened in the
416
past. In the equivalent debate last year I predicted that rents would rise by up to £1·60 per week. In the event, the actual rent increase turned out to be just under £1·50. If rents go up by the £1·32 we are forecasting next year— and this figure was not disputed by the convention when I met it in December— the average council rent will stand at £14·34per week in Scotland. The rental figures that I am giving are not unreasonable.
Two points are worth emphasising. First, the £14·34 average next year is well below the current year's average council rent of £16·55 in England and Wales and below current rent levels in housing associations, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town houses and the prevate sector in Scotland.
Secondly, although we hear much from the Opposition Benches about local authority rent increases over the past year, let me remind the House of some figures given in answer to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) on 3 December 1986, which showed that registered rents, that is, fair rents independently assessed, in Scotland rose faster between 1979 and 1985 than local authority rents—by 174 per cent. against 135 per cent. Those are rent increases set not by councils but by independent assessment. In 1985 they stood at £2·64 per week higher than the local authority figure we are forecasting for 1987. Of course, if tenants have genuine difficulty in meeting their housing costs, relief is available to them through the housing benefit system.
Just in case the hon. Member has any interests in Kyle and Carrick, which I think may touch on part of his constituency, I might point out to him that the increase in rent involved in the figures that I have given tonight, in terms of our estimate, would be only 21 pence. I am sure that he, among others in the area, would welcome that.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that the figures included in the orders before the House tonight are designed to reinforce our policies for housing in Scotland across the whole range. Reductions in rate fund contributions and housing support grant, taken together, are evidence of our continuing determination to concentrate on using the resources available for housing on capital investment.
Indiscriminate subsidies are wasteful and do not encourage efficient management by authorities. The reduction in rate fund contributions will offer relief to hard-pressed ratepayers, and it has contributed towards further increases in capital expenditure. These increases, totalling nearly 60 per cent. over three years, together with the 7 per cent. increase for management and maintenance expenditure built into the calculations, will ensure overall that tenants benefit by a higher standard of housing provision.
We have consulted widely on the orders. I am satisfied that the figures they contain are fair and reasonable. I commend the orders to the House.
Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was clear when the debate started that items 3 to 5 on today's Order Paper were to be taken together; the House had earlier consented to that. What was not clear, however, was that the Minister would take the best part of half an hour to address the House on the business. I am seeking your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which we can undo the undertaking to deal with these matters together

417
so that the debate may be extended for three hours? That would allow the Opposition to reply adequately to the puerile case that was made by the Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible to extend the debate by the length of time that the hon. Gentleman wishes, because the House previously made a decision by motion to take the orders together. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker put the question to the House—I was present when he put it—about taking the orders and prayer together, and the House did not dissent.
10.31 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister will demand the right to reply to the debate, he will take up almost half the debating time. That is ridiculous, in a short but important debate.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should not have intervened.
Mr. Maxton: The Minister says that I should not have intervened. I made only one short intervention.
I have heard of generosity, but generosity from this Minister cannot be believed. If he had applied the formula that he used in previous years he would have cut the housing support grant by £13 million instead of by only £6 million. I suppose one could call him generous for doing that.
The Minister then suggested that the Government have been inordinately generous because tenants in council houses have benefited from the marvellous works that this beneficent Government have done. He seems to think that they are a marvellous lot and that everyone will finish up voting for them. What a laugh.
Let us consider the facts. Let us start with the housing support grant. Let us see what has happened under this Government. In 1979, housing support grant was £213 million. By 1984–85, it was down to £120 million. By 1985–86, it was reduced to £90 million. In 1986–87, it was reduced to £51 million. This year it is being reduced again to £46·5million. Those are all in cash terms and not affected by inflation. In cash terms alone the reduction in housing support grant has been 75 per cent. Yet the Minister tried to tell us that he was being generous in increasing the capital allocation by some 5 per cent.
Let us examine the total package for this year. The rate fund contribution has been reduced from £70 million to £44 million. The housing support grant has been reduced from £51 million to £47 million. Those figures compare with £90 million and £64 million respectively in 1985–86. I accept that capital allocations have gone up from £325 million to £362 million. If we look at the totality of what is being spent on housing by the Government and the amount of money they allow local authorities to spend, we see that it was £446 million in 1986–87, and that it will be £453 million in 1987–88. That is an increase of £7 million and that includes this so-called enormously generous capital allocation. That is an increase of about 2·5 per cent., well below the rate of inflation. In real terms, it is once again a cut, even if we include those "generous" capital allocations.
There are now only 25 housing authorities in Scotland receiving any form of rate fund contribution or housing support grant. Two thirds of the total housing stock in Scotland receives no subsidy at all. Every time the Minister
418
gives these "generous" capital allocations, of course, it is the tenants through their rent who have to pay the interest on any capital loans taken out by local authorities. Sometimes the Minister tries to create the impression that a capital allocation is a sum of money that he gives to local authorities in grant. Of course it is not: it is money that the local authorities have to borrow.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maxton: The Minister made a long speech. I want to make a short speech so that other hon. Members can join in the debate. Every time a local authority borrows money, the tenant has to pay the interest in his rent. That is exactly what the Government intend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about the percentage increase in rent. On average it will be 16 per cent. That is nearly four times the rate of inflation and more than double the estimated rise in earnings in that period. My hon. Friend is right when he says that many poor people who are waged cannot get housing benefit. They will struggle in order to meet those increases, because £1 or £1·20or £2 a week which is more likely to be the average will hit them hard. We have to look at what the Government give in support to local authority housing and what has been given in the past.
At present, only 12 per cent. of total council house costs come from central Government and 88 per cent. comes from the tenants in rent. In 1979–80 the rents made up only 47 per cent. of council house costs and grants made up 53 per cent. Council house tenants suffer under the Government. We in the Opposition do not suffer in that way because very few of my hon. Friends live in council houses. The tenants have suffered enormously as a result of what the Government have done. Repairs are not now carried out. The expenditure on repairs on council houses in Scotland has gone up by 50 per cent. in cash terms between 1979 and 1985–86. The rate of inflation in that period was 74·5 per cent. That means that there has been a massive cut in repairs by local authorities. We have seen higher rents, poorer repair services and fewer opportunities to move house because there has been a lack of new building and renovation of older properties. What has happened?
Mr. Ancram: What about empty housing?
Mr. Maxton: The Minister keeps on saying that, but of the empty housing in Scotland, 4 per cent. of privately owned property stands empty, 11 per cent. of privately rented property stands empty, but only 2 per cent. of council housing stands empty. The Minister's argument about council housing does not stand up.
Mrs. Anna McCurley rose—
Mr. Maxton: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Lady.
We should study the figures that have been drawn up by COSLA—they are based on figures provided by the Scottish Office. The Minister should remember that when he tries to evade the evidence. The figures relate to the condition of housing— that is what matters to people. Out of the 854,000 council houses in Scotland, 332,900

419
need modernising; 118,200 need to be rewired; 314,000 suffer from dampness or condensation, and 50,000 need major or structural repairs.
Of course, one can double count. One can spend a great deal of money to cure the dampness and condensation in a house without modernising it or vice versa. Any fool could work that out— even this Minister. COSLA estimate that it would cost £880 million per year for the next ten years to get the existing Scottish housing stock in order.
Scotland faces a major housing crisis and the tenants in council houses are facing major problems. However, at the end of the day, the Government simply do not care and nor does the Minister. Their only concern—
Mrs. McCurley: Rubbish.
Mr. Foulkes: You do not care either, Shirley Temple, so shut up!
Mr. Maxton: The Government are interested in cutting housing expenditure so that they can give bigger tax cuts to their wealthy friends. They are not interested in the 50 per cent. of people who live in council housing—it does not concern them. They are looking for cheap votes by giving tax cuts, but at the same time hitting the poorest and weakest in our society. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote against these orders.
10.43 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: We have heard what might be described as a fairly traditional speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). It had little to do with the order and did not challenge the essential philosophy that was stated by my hon. Friend the Minister with his customary clarity.
My hon. Friend outlined a policy which will reduce indiscriminate subsidy and concentrate scarce resources on capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Cathcart did not say whether the Labour party agreed that that was an essentially sensible housing policy. Instead, the hon. Gentleman's speech totally disintegrated into an irrelevant discussion about tax cuts.
I agree with the basic thrust of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, but I am extremely disappointed that he has not gone further. The Minister can confirm that both housing authorities in my constituency, Eastwood and Renfrew, have fallen out of housing support grant. Therefore, we are talking of public expenditure of £46·5 million in Scotland, none of which benefits my constituents. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, that is therefore a logical reason for me and a number of my hon. Friends to vote with the Labour party. If it were successful in defeating the order, housing support grant would be abolished—clearly to the benefit of my constituents.
Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is contemplating which way to vote, will he remember that in 1979 some £50 million was spent on housing benefit, whereas the current figure is more than £500 million? That aid is going to the individual householder directly from the public purse. It is massive support for individual householders in Scotland—in fact, more than 50 per cent.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has cut my speech by making a point that I was about to make.
420
When resources are scarce, it makes sense to concentrate them on individuals in need, not to spend them indiscriminately on broad, general subsidies.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, if he is left sufficient time to do so, I hope that the will confirm the position for Eastwood and Renfrew districts. Will he emphasise that there is no need to be defensive about a reduction in housing support grant? The logic of a sensible housing policy is to concentrate resources on people and on capital expenditure. I hope that he will confirm that next year he will, at the very least, announce a substantial reduction on the present support grant figure.
10.46 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I read in the Standard tonight that someone asked the Prime Minister what she had changed; she replied, "Everything". She has certainly changed the pattern and level of housing finance, and the effects of that have been both socially damaging and financially unjust.
I never cease to be amazed and. indeed, saddened by the number of people who ask me to help them obtain a house. All hon. Members must have experienced that. The great majority are genuine cases living in inadequate circumstances. What do we do?
We raise the matter with the local authority, but we know that it cannot help because there has been no new build, and there are no plans to begin any.
Mrs. McCurley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a certain party in this House ended political patronage in the disposal—
Mr. Foulkes: Name that party, oh name that party.
Mrs. McCurley: We have in our midst a mimic—a highly inadequate and untalented mimic. I believe that if one does not have talent, one should keep quiet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down then."] Does the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) agree that if there was not a certain degree of political patronage in assigning local council houses, that might end some of the problems?
Sir Russell Johnston: This hon. Gentleman does not agree, actually.
I was saying that there had been no new-build and no money to start any. Most of those who come to me for help do not have a hope of obtaining a mortgage. I imagine that that experience must be shared by Conservative Members, so I am surprised that they are not also shocked. After all, this is supposed to be the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless—to make no mention of the disabled.
This Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order could be called the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Contraction Order. When the Government took office, half of the housing revenue account in the Inverness district came from housing support grant, but the figure has now dropped to 16 per cent.—although I admit that, even at that level, it is better than a great many districts receive. In Aberdeen it has gone from 40 per cent. to 1·8 per cent., and next year it will disappear. In Strathkelvin and Bearsden it has gone from 32 per cent. to nil.
At first, councils tried to compensate by increasing the rate fund contributions, but, as we know, the Government cut that back. What was left? As the hon. Member for

421
Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, rents. In Aberdeen, rents have doubled as a percentage of the housing revenue account from 45 to 79 per cent. The Scottish average is 82 per cent. Rents have increased by 165 per cent. in the past seven years. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said. that is at least four times the rate of inflation. I accept that some increases were necessary, but I do not accept that it is fair that rents should now have become such a proportion of the housing revenue account. Inevitably, that means that council tenants are now funding general community services, such as the operation of the homeless persons Act through their rents. That is not reasonable.
One can see the consequences in the growth of housing benefit payments. If the Government introduce the cash-limited fund under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986, which they can, I can see a mad scramble for what is available, and heaven knows what will happen then.
The Minister said that we were all concerned with the real extent of need. Therefore, why do we not have a housing condition survey? He also said that he did not rule out joint discussions. His dynamism makes one dizzy. Even if there is a dispute about COSLA figures—
Mr. Foulkes: He is almost as dynamic as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
Sir Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is there any way of keeping Shirley Temple's friend quiet?
Even if there is a dispute about the COSLA figures—and there is such a dispute, as both the Minister and the hon. Member for Cathcart have said—there cannot he any dispute about the scale and the gravity of the Scottish housing crisis, nor will the proposed capital allocation do anything other than slowly mitigate it.
With so many hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate, I can make only a brief contribution. I end by saying that I was quite struck by the Minister's ringing assertion—that is the only way of describing it—at the end of his speech when he said that the capital allocation had risen by five per cent. since 1979. He said
"that that is the measure of the Government's commitment."
I suppose that, on that at least, he was right. He is the Minister with the five per cent. commitment.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman can make any assertions that he wishes as to whether a 5 per cent. real-term increase since 1979 is adequate. As a member of the Lib-Lab pact, why did he support a reduction of 37 per cent. in real terms during the period of office of the previous Labour Government?
Sir Russell Johnston: We do not need to go into history at the moment.
Mr. Bill Walker: Because it is uncomfortable.
Sir Russell Johnston: A lot of history is uncomfortable, as the hon. Gentleman will find when the election comes.
10.53 pm
Mr. Alexander Pollock: I welcome the chance to say a few words in this short debate on Scottish housing orders. The Minister will recall that last July we had a debate on housing in the Scottish Grand Committee, when I raised several matters with him. He will no doubt also recall that at that time I urged the Government to increase support for the new-build programme. Since then, there has been some encouraging news. Indeed, the housing
422
capital allocation from the Scottish Office for 1987–88 is good news for my constituency of Moray. The housing revenue account allocation of £5 million represents a remarkable 93 per cent. of the district councils own bid and is an increase of 11 per cent. over the allocation of last March. The non-HRA block for the private sector is even better, with a 100 per cent. allocation of Moray district council's bid. That is most encouraging, and I congratulate the Minister on his response.
Of course, I must advise the Minister and the House of the important role of housing associations in new house provision, especially for those with special needs. I saw an excellent example of that last October when I had the honour of opening a new development at Buckpool undertaken by the Hanover housing association. I should like to remind the House of what I said on that occasion:
"Of the seventy-seven Hanover schemes in Scotland, this Buckpool development is the eleventh to be tenanted by the elderly in Moray. It is worthy of note that Hanover Housing Association were the recipients of commendations for two earlier schemes in Moray at Rothes and Elgin …
I have no doubt that it is precisely because of the excellent record of the housing association movement … that the Government have invested over £100 million in Scotland for the sixth successive year and have enabled 24,000 houses to be added to the association's stock since 1979."
Since then, I have received details of further proposed housing association developments elsewhere in my constituency in Buckie, Keith and Dufftown, again all funded through the Housing Corporation from allocations by central Government via the Scottish Office.
Mr. Foulkes: That is something for the Banffshire Herald.
Mr. Pollock: It is indeed.
That, in turn, has been followed by both good, and possibly bad, news on funding. The Secretary of State, in his statement to the House on 9 December referred to the extra funding for the Housing Corporation, making a total of £123 million in Scotland. That sum was warmly welcomed by the Housing Corporation. But there is a worry about the provisional allocation of resources for 1987–88 announced at the turn of the year by the Housing Corporation. I have already written to the Secretary of State about this and I am sure that the Minister is also aware of the problem. It relates to achieving the right balance between extra assistance for housing needs within Strathclyde and the provision of needs elsewhere in Scotland. I hope that he can respond sympathetically when his decision is made.
Finally, I must speak of a matter raised in the July debate and touched on by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It relates to ascertaining the true condition of the present housing stock. At that time I made clear the willingness of Moray district council to take part in a pilot survey which would be part of an early initiative to find out the state of the housing stock. In reply, the Minister made it clear that he might be willing to embark on such a scheme for two pilot authorities in 1987. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether he could say what progress has been made on reaching a decision on pilot schemes in Scotland. That would be of general and particular interest.
10.58 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to ask four clear, related factual questions.

423
First, COSLA states in its brief that 332,900 houses need remodernising. Do the Government accept that figure? If not, what is their figure? Secondly, COSLA says that 118,200 houses need to be rewired—a subject on which I interrupted the Minister. Do the Government accept this figure, or do they have a better figure of their own?
Third, COSLA says that 314,000 houses suffer from dampness and condensation. Again I repeat the same question: do the Government accept this figure, or do they have a better figure?
Fourthly, COSLA says that 150,000 houses need major or structural repairs. Again I ask the Government: do they agree with this figure, or do they have a better figure?
I promised to be extremely brief. The Minister will recollect that, when he was a well-received and very successful Conservative candidate in the West Lothian constituency, as was the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), communities such as Whitburn and Blackburn, and also parts of Livingston, faced very real problems because of deterioration. The housing stock was built at a time when suddenly the rewiring, for reasons that were not the fault of the tenants or the local authority, or even the builders, deteriorated. Do the Government accept this problem of sudden deterioration? In particular, do they accept the COSLA figures? If they do not, the Government had better produce figures of their own.
11 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I, too, shall be brief and will endeavour to concentrate my remarks on the orders and to relate them to the history of this matter.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that when we took office in 1979 there was a problem over the housing stock in Scotland and over the way in which local authorities were tackling the difficulties that faced individual tenants? We are concerned about individual tenants who are living in houses where there are problems.
Part of the difficulty was that many local authorities believed it to be their duty and responsibility to offer the same conditions to each of their tenants. They said that, if there were to be a fairly substantial input from ratepayers as a contribution towards rent support, it should go to everyone, regardless of whether or not they could afford to pay the rent in full.
We decided to provide aid to those who needed it and we have provided support in two ways. Support went to local authorities that used it to provide for tenants on a collective basis. Through housing benefits, we have also provided help for individual tenants. Indeed, the majority of help to tenants has been provided through housing benefit. It goes directly to the tenant and it pays part of the rent—often the whole of the rent.
The increase from £50 million in 1979 to £500 million today represents a real change in housing support. It goes directly to individual tenants, it is paid out of the public purse and it provides help for those in need. We are proud of that policy. It is wrong to adopt a blanket approach to the use of public money. Aid should go to those in need. A caring society looks after those who, for whatever reason, cannot provide for their own needs. That is the aim of our housing policy.
11.3 pm
Mr. David Lambie: These orders will drive another nail into tenants' coffins. It is a further attempt by the Government to disregard Scottish traditions and to attack and discriminate against Scottish tenants. Cunninghame district council tenants are now facing a rent increase of £2·50 a week because of these orders. That is a 25 per cent. increase in rent, and the kind of increase that the council has never tried to impose before.
The increase has been brought about by three actions of this Government. This year, Cunninghame district council will receive no housing support grant. In fact, it has received nothing since 1983–84. It last received housing support grant when the influence of the last Labour Government was still being exercised. That was in 1980–81. Cunninghame district council then received just under £5 million. Therefore, the grant has been reduced by this Government from £5 million to nil.
The limit this year on the rate fund contribution is just under £800,000. That will have a rent impact of £2·28a week. The council can do nothing about it. Last year, the limit on the rate fund contribution was just over £2 million. This year, there is a 77 per cent. reduction. That is because this Government have failed to control interest rates. Interest rates of between 10 and 11 per cent. are being charged on houses, although in most other industrialised countries the interest rates on houses are between 3 and 6 per cent. In Japan, interest rates are 3 per cent.
The withdrawal of the housing support grant, the limit on the rate fund contribution and the failure of the Government's economic policy to control interest rates has meant that my district council is faced with that reduction. The people whom I represent, who live in council houses, face rent increases of £2·50per week. That is a continuation of the attack on people who live in public sector housing. The Urban Development Corporation—another major housing authority in my constituency—is allowing substantial increases in rents. The rents of the Urban Development Corporation are currently the highest of the new towns in Scotland. The Scottish Special Housing Association, which is under direct Government control, has increased rents by an average of 9 per cent., and in most of the areas that I represent by between 9 per cent. and 15 per cent. That is another attack by a south of England owner-occupation Tory Government against council tenants in Scotland.
I was surprised to hear the Minister and other Tory Members talk about indiscriminate subsidies. We are dealing with council housing, which receives no subsidy. The tenants in Cunninghame district council receive no housing support grant. The Minister did not mention the billions of pounds that the Government are paying in tax relief on interest on mortgages above £30,000. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) did not mention the indiscriminate subsidies to the Prime Minister, who bought a house for £400,000 and has the cheek to claim an income tax rebate on her mortgage. Nobody mentioned the richest family in Britain, the royal family, who are buying indiscriminately—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our conventions do not allow the hon. Gentleman to say that.
Mr. Lambie: The royal family are buying houses for members of their family, and they are claiming income tax rebates on the mortgage below £30,000.
I do not represent the rich people of Britain, or the rich people of the south-east of England, who have a tradition of owner-occupation. I represent council and public sector tenants, who are not receiving the indiscriminate housing subsidies that the Minister talked about, unlike the Prime Minister and all the people who are buying their houses. I represent the people who have been forced to live in council houses and pay increases in rent that they cannot afford, and a constituency where every third man is unemployed. That is why I will be voting against these orders.
I shall tell my electorate that unless we get a change of Government and of policy with regard to housing, so that the working people of Scotland get their share of these indiscriminate subsidies, we will never get fair treatment. That is why I am looking forward to the general election, to get rid of that crowd and get the representatives of the council tenants back in power in Britain, when we will get a fair deal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Sir Hector Monro.
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order, just once, to have a Scottish debate without another contribution from the hon. Member for Dumfries?
11.9 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I shall just have to ignore the painfully rude intervention of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) should spend a little more time thanking the Government for the many new jobs that have been brought to his constituency. His constituents would be much more grateful for that than the rubbish that he has been talking for the past 10 minutes.
We appreciate the increase of £68 million in capital allocation for 1987–88. At £362·5 million, housing revenue account is up £40 million, or 12·5 per cent. To listen to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), however, one would think that the money had been reduced. On a three-year average, there has been an increase of 60 per cent. Non-HRA money affects the private sector and helps the building industry.
Mr. Foulkes: See what I mean? I cannot understand a word he says. We put up with it all the time.
Sir Hector Monro: It has increased substantially—by £28 million, or 24 per cent. Opposition Members, who are jeering away on the Back Benches, do not seem to realise that there is a substantial increase in money available for housing in Scotland.
Annandale and Eskdale has got 88·5 per cent of its bid, which is a 10 per cent. increase, and its HRA bid of 96 per cent. is an increase of 25 per cent. It is especially grateful for the HRA supplementary of £450,000 for 1986–87, out of a total of £1·5 million for Scotland.
For Nithsdale, which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) also represents, it is impressive to see that HRA expenditure is going up by 15 per cent. in 1987–88 and that non-HRA expenditure is going up by no less than 114 per cent. That must be good for local building contractors.
426
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and others in their tribute to the housing associations for the important part that they are playing, especially when housing is required for special needs. We should not miss out the Scottish Special Housing Association and fail to comment on the standard of housing that it provides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to stress the importance of housing benefit to the tune of £500 million, which has been completely ignored by the Opposition Front Bench. It is important to support people who are least able to afford good housing.
Scotland has benefited enormously from the sale of council houses, which was so vehemently opposed by the Opposition. That policy has successfully enabled many people in Scotland to own their own homes. Whatever the Opposition have said, and whatever is their reason for voting against this increased expenditure on housing in Scotland, the Government have done a first-class job.
11.13 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson: There is no doubt on this side of the House that housing allocations for the coming year are grossly inadequate and unable to deal with our bad housing situation.
Two questions must be asked. First, have the Government added to housing resources and, secondly, is the allocation adequate to meet the problems now to be found in the public sector? I was struck by the good briefing provided by the Convention of Scottish local Authorities, which showed that there is not all that great an improvement in the 1987–88 figures over the 1984–85 figures. It says that resources have been increased by £7 million between 1986–87 and 1987–88. This is a reduction of about 2 per cent. when inflation is taken into account. It also drew to the attention of those hon. Members whom it saw the fact that there is still a backlog in the repair grants in the private sector from 1984, when the 90 per cent. grants were abolished. That shows the extent to which the Government have been failing.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has made it clear that about 68 per cent. of local authorities now receive no rate support grant, and the city of Dundee has not had such a grant for 1983–84. Those of us who have to deal with constituencies with a large council house sector are all too well aware of the human misery that comes from repairs not being carried out in time, of problems of dampness that cannot be dealt with properly because of the slow down in insulation programmes, of the delays in carrying out repairs, particularly towards the end of the financial year, when the local authority has to wait for the new financial year to get access to cash, and of the slow-down in modernisation programmes. All of these are bad enough to describe, but, if we had to live with such housing conditions, there would be a squeal of pain, horror and anxiety from the Tory Benches, for a change.
The Government's statistical bulletin shows that in the first quarter of 1986 only 14 houses in Dundee were demolished. I refuse to accept, from my knowledge of the city's housing conditions, that that dealt with the problems of our housing. In that period, there were only two public tenders, and only 265 private sector grants. Table 8 in the bulletin shows that although starts were better, at 131 houses, that was completely Inadequate. Of that number, 35 were private starts, 19 were Scottish special housing

427
association starts, 77 were housing associations starts, but there were none by local authorities. The district was not able to supply the housing needs, particularly in the specialised housing sector. There were 46 completions—24 from the housing association sector, and 22 from the private sector. Such a record is inadequate to deal with the housing problems of one of Scotland's major cities.
Despite the letter that I recently received from the Minister, there is a question mark over what share of increased resources coming from the Housing Corporation will go to housing associations on the east coast. There is a great fear that what limited money is available will be taken to Glasgow and Strathclyde, and people on the east coast will not get a fair share of the cash.
It is hardly surprising that, of the rising unemployment in Dundee, a large part is caused by lack of employment in the building sector, because of lack of activity. People are unnecessarily laid off work when a good job could be done, which would upgrade the existing housing stock and provide desperately needed specialised housing.
11.18 pm
Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful debate on these grant orders. It has been instructive for Conservative Members to find out how many Labour Members seem unaware of what allocations have been going to their areas. It was interesting to note that my hon. Friends appeared to be well aware of the way in which the Government have increased allocations and met the problems in Scotland's housing stock.
Mr. Maxton: Answer the questions.
Mr. Ancram: I am about to do so, but it is only right that first I set the debate in context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made it clear that in his area the HRA was increased by 23 per cent., and 100 per cent. of the non- HRA bid was met. I know that the people of Eastwood will be grateful for that and will not see it in the same terms as Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), who made an excellent intervention, told us that 100 per cent. of her housing revenue account was met and that there was a 17 per cent. increase. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) seemed unaware that he had had an increase this year of 31 per cent. in his HRA—
Mr. Foulkes: I do not have an HRA.
Mr. Ancram: Over the past three years the hon. Gentleman's HRA capital allocation— the hon. Gentleman seems to think that he does not have one, but if he checks he will find that his district council does.
Mr. Foulkes: That is different.
Mr. Ancram: He will find that his district council has enjoyed an increase of 111 per cent. over the past three years, nearly double the average increase for Scotland as a whole. I find it difficult to accept from the hon. Gentleman that he is not grateful for that and that he does not believe that that will go a long way towards meeting the housing problems in the area that he represents.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of specific matters that were based on COSLA
428
figures. I have some difficulty in answering his questions because his figures do not tally with those that appear in the COSLA paper that was presented to me in the summer of 1986. I shall be interested to learn why there are differences between the hon. Gentleman's figures and those of COSLA. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of condensation and dampness, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). It is worth reminding the House that because we recognise these problems we have encouraged local authorities to concentrate their efforts on tackling the difficulties. To that end, we have issued special allocations amounting to £61 million over three years. We made it clear at the time that we were issuing them that we did not expect £61 million to be the total sum spent on tackling condensation and dampness. The allocations were additional to those that would have been made and we made them in the hope that we would encourage housing authorities to move faster on these serious and difficult problems.
The latest check-list figures— these are the figures that we use because they come from the councils—tend to suggest that the increase in allocations is having the desired effect. Over the past year the number of houses requiring treatment for condensation has fallen by 37,000 or over 15 per cent. That is a reduction from 28 per cent. to 24 per cent. of the total stock. If we take the total of affected stock in the third category, which is the most severe, we find that there has been a reduction from 25 per cent. to 12 per cent. Over the same period the percentage of the total stock affected by dampness has reduced from 7·7 to 4·7. These are the figures that are provided to the Government by the local authorities in their check lists.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) stirs in his place, but the figures suggest that, contrary to the argument that he has advanced of a deterioriation, the problems of condensation and dampness have been reduced. We should recognise that and congratulate the local authorities on responding to the encouragement that we have given them and tackling the problems.
Mr. Maxton: The Minister might make it clear that all COSLA's figures come from the same check lists.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that because of that, and because we were supplied with the same figures, we question the figures that have been put to us this evening. Housing surveys would present only a general picture of the problems in Scotland, and accordingly the check lists provide a sounder basis for assessment.
Mr. Dick Douglas: While any diminution in levels of condensation and dampness is to be welcomed, what steps are the Minister's Department taking to monitor the supposed decrease? I paid a visit to one of the most difficult housing areas in Dunfermline on Monday with representatives of the two local authorities concerned and it was manifestly clear that whatever the authorities believe—and I am not knocking the local authorities—the tenants, having rising aspirations and rising standards, are faced with the problem of rising dampness and rising condensation.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman asked what steps we are taking to monitor progress. We look closely at the

429
check lists which are returned to us by the local authorities, to assess what changes have occurred in comparison to previous years, to evaluate the trends and to decide what problems exist within the housing stock. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the fact that those check lists show that the encouragement that we have given, which means that authorities will spend £135 million—or 60 per cent.—more than they were spending three years ago, is beginning to have some effect.
Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, will he carefully consider the point that I raised about housing benefit and the way in which that relates to the percentages given from the Opposition Front Bench? The Opposition Front Bench obviously took no account of housing benefit when they calculated the public financial support given to local authority housing in Scotland. If the Opposition work out percentages without considering all the inputs, they will always come up with the wrong answers. If they feed in rubbish, they will get rubbish out.
Mr. Ancram: When my hon. Friend made that very percipient intervention, I nodded in agreement, because he is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Cathcart, as always, gave only part of the figures. If he considers the total provision for housing, he must take into account the housing benefit. If there is a rental effect, that benefit may be replacing some of the indiscriminate subsidies that were paid before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was absolutely right. The figure of housing benefit paid in Scotland in 1979–80 was £58·925 million. The 1986–87 figure was £503·075 million. If the hon. Member for Cathcart had been honest with his figures, he would have had to have taken those figures into account.
The hon. Member for Cathcart continued to quote figures and claimed that there was an increase of only £7 million next year in the capital allocations. He said that the rise was from £446 million to £453 million. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the capital allocations issued in March last year for the current year were £441·5 million. The provisional allocations for next year with both blocks together on the same basis is £510 million—a £68 million increase and a 15 . 5 per cent. increase overall. The hon. Gentleman does himself and his credibility no favours by diminishing the figures.
The hon. Member for Cathcart also claimed that only 25 authorities in Scotland were still in housing support grant. He did not mention the fact that the number of housing authorities in housing support grant will be higher in the coming year than last year because of the change in the formula that I have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) raised a number of important points, in particular matters relating to the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation will be submitting its annual development plan to me. I will want to consider that carefully and I will bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray also referred to the pilot scheme for a local housing condition survey. I can confirm that Moray district council was approached but declined to participate and my original offer was not fulfilled.
I always enjoy the speeches made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). Tonight he told
430
us about the requirement to increase rents by more than £2·50 within Cunninghame district council. Our estimate, as a result of the orders under discussion tonight, is that there will be an increase of £1·07. I am sure that there are very good reasons why Cunninghame district council has decided to make a higher increase than that. What is more interesting, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, is that Cunninghame district council's rents are the lowest in Scotland at only £10·53. I f our increase was added, they would rise to £11·60, but they would still be among the lowest in Scotland.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that we must relate Scottish figures to English figures? Is it not true that, under the orders, Scottish rents will still be lower than those in England?
Mr. Ancram: Yes. I made it clear in my original remarks that that will remain the case. Indeed, with average manual workers' wages in Scotland at about the same level as those in England, it is interesting to note that a lower proportion of that income is spent on rent than it is south of the border.
I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will support the orders, because the councils of Inverness, Lochaber and Nairn will receive more housing support grant in 1987–88 than they did this year. I am sure that he will welcome that and will be in the Lobby with us tonight.
In this debate, as usual., we have heard from the Opposition nothing but tales of destruction and deterioration in Scotland's housing stock under this Government. May I point out that under this Government 140,000 new houses have been built— a 3·5 per cent. increase in the total stock at a time when the population is falling. The Government are proud of that figure. Under the Government, the number of sheltered dwellings has trebled to more than 22,400 compared with the figure under the Labour Government. On the same basis, the number of amenity dwellings has trebled to more than 8,500. During the past three years, capital allocations for local authorities have increased by almost 60 per cent. More local authority dwellings were improved last year—45,000—than in any of the previous 10 years.
That is a record of which the Government can be proud, and I ask my hon. Friends to support the orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1987, which was laid before this House en 14th January, be approved.

Housing (Scotland)

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ancram.]

  HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND)
  It being one and a half hours after proceedings on the first motion were entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 February], to put the Question on the remaining motion.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No.

  431
  11), dated 7th January 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be annulled— [Mr. Maxton]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 169.

  Division No. 90]

  [11.32 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  John, Brynmor

  Alton, David

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Lambie, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Lamond, James

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Boyes, Roland

  Livsey, Richard

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Loyden, Edward

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Buchan, Norman

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Caborn, Richard

  McWilliam, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Madden, Max

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mallon, Seamus

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Marek, Dr John

  Clarke, Thomas

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clay, Robert

  Maxton, John

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Michie, William

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Nellist, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  O'Brien, William

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Parry, Robert

  Craigen, J. M.

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Donald

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Redmond, Martin

  Douglas, Dick

  Rogers, Allan

  Dubs, Alfred

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fatchett, Derek

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Faulds, Andrew

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Foster, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Wallace, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Michael

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Mr. Tony Lloyd and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

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

  Arnold, Tom

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ashby, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Browne, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Blackburn, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Butterfill, John

  432

  Carttiss, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Chope, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Colvin, Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Coombs, Simon

  Portillo, Michael

  Cope, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Corrie, John

  Powley, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Price, Sir David

  Crouch, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Raffan, Keith

  Dicks, Terry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dover, Den

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Dunn, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Durant, Tony

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Rost, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Favell, Anthony

  Ryder, Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Forth, Eric

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Galley, Roy

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Sims, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Speed, Keith

  Hayes, J.

  Speller, Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Spencer, Derek

  Hirst, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Holt, Richard

  Squire, Robin

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Key, Robert

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Knowles, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lang, Ian

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Latham, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Lester, Jim

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lightbown, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Lilley, Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lord, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Trotter, Neville

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Maclean, David John

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Major, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Watson, John

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Watts, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wheeler, John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Whitfield, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wolfson, Mark

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Murphy, Christopher

  Woodcock, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Needham, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Neubert, Michael

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Gerald Malone.

  Norris, Steven

  Question accordingly negatived.

Settle-Carlisle Railway Line
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
11.44 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I should like to preface my remarks tonight by thanking all my parliamentary colleagues who have lent me their support and encouragement for this debate. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), and the hon. Gentleman, my friend, the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), who is recovering from an illness or he would be with us tonight. All of them were fighting for the retention of this line even before I was elected, and I pay tribute to their valiant efforts.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce another debate on the Carlisle to Settle line. The House will be aware that I initiated a debate on 12 March 1984, shortly after my maiden speech in this House. Since that time a lot has happened and the main arguments have been conducted outside the parliamentary arena while the transport users consultative committees inquiries were taking place. Now that these inquiries have been concluded and the report of the TUCC is lying on the Minister's desk, it is appropriate once again to return the argument to the political arena. It is also important to have this debate because we have before us a unique report. Never before in our history can we have had a joint report from two committees which ends with the words:
"On the basis of the undoubted hardship the closure of the line would cause together with the strength of the commercial case presented for its retention, the Committee strongly and emphatically recommend that consent to British Rail proposals to close the Settle to Carlisle line be refused."
It is my intention to put on record on the Floor of the
House some of the comments from the joint TUCCs' report which make up that emphatic recommendation.
When I gave evidence to the inquiry at Appleby last year, I said to the chairman:
"I do wish to make clear that in addition to the hardship evidence which I shall present here today, I shall avail myself of the opportunity to use the direct line to the Minister. I shall show to him that British Rail have adopted a policy of wanton neglect of this line, that they have failed to spend a fair proportion of the Exchequer subsidy on it; failed, until very recently, to market it properly and deliberately or negligently changed trains timetables to discourage use. I shall seek to show to him that the line is of strategic diversionary importance as we shall see this coming Easter weekend when approximately 66 trains will be re-routed over it. We all know that it is part of our great engineering heritage but it can also be part of an exciting enterprise future if it was integrated into a proper tourism development plan, perhaps with the injection of private capital."
I did not anticipate at that time that the TUCCs would look at factors other than hardship and, I am delighted to say, come to some very firm and sensible conclusions. First, I want to tell the House about the hardship that would be occasioned to my constituents, and particularly to those in Appleby.
The TUCCs concluded that very severe hardship would be caused to elderly and disabled people travelling to Carlisle to make hospital visits, for essential shopping needs and to visit friends and relatives. They also said that people travelling to destinations in the Leeds direction and
434
beyond to visit relatives or for other essential purposes, and those for whom no private transport is available, would suffer hardship.
The TUCCs also concluded that severe hardship would be caused to mothers and others travelling with babies and/or young children who find travelling by bus more arduous than by train and who would have difficulty making the interchange between bus and train at Penrith. In addition, the TUCCs listed all those other cases where there would be considerable hardship a nd an element of hardship caused to my constituents.
Of crucial importance is the TUCCs' conclusion on how to alleviate that hardship. They said:
"The committees believe that there is no way of satisfactorily alleviating the hardship that would be caused to those using Appleby station and those benefiting from the existence of the railway."
That is a devastating and quite conclusive comment, but in addition to the rail users living and working in Appleby, the committees also identified others who would suffer if the line closed. For example, 16 per cent. of economically active residents in Appleby are engaged in jobs generated by tourism, and it is clear that closure of the Settle to Carlisle line would have a serious effect on the town's economic fortunes.
The Minister will see that the committees have also dealt with through services on the Carlisle to Settle line, and I think it is fair to say that they were highly suspicious of the timetabling and re-routeing changes that had taken place, confirming the suspicion held by many of us that British Raid had adopted closure by stealth tactics that have now, thankfully, backfired. The committees concluded that there would be many cases of severe and considerable hardship caused to through travellers if the line closed, and said that any proposals for alleviating hardship produced by British Rail would, if effected, benefit comparatively few people.
Many constituents who have written to me have pointed out the strategic importance of the Settle to Carlisle line in its own right, and also its importance as a diversionary route on those all too frequent occasions when the west coast main line is out of action. Again, the committees were more inclined to believe the survey done by the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Line Association showing that the line was used for diversionary purposes on many more occasions than British Rail was prepared to admit.
However, British Rail's preferred diversionary route is apparently the Cumbrian coast line, which is so eminently suitable for diversionary purposes that current coaching stock using this line has iron bars fixed over the windows preventing passengers from putting their heads out because the trains pass so close together. Every time a west coast main line train is diverted British Rail proposes to solve that problem by instituting single line working and issuing verbal warnings to passengers not to stick their heads out of the window. Therefore, quite rightly, the committees concluded:
"The Cumbrian Coast Line would not provide an acceptable alternative for diversionary services. It appears that very high expenditure will be necessary to improve the line capacity and journey times for diverted services. Indeed, it struck the Committees that British Rail's approach to the diversionary potential of this line lacked credibility and was somewhat haphazard."
They are the TUCC's conclusions, not mine, but they happen to coincide.

435
Let me turn briefly now to financial matters. Here we have some difficulty because the TUCCs pointed out:
"Throughout the public hearing the Committees repeatedly asked British Rail to substantiate its case for closure by providing estimates of the cost required to renovate and maintain the Settle to Carlisle line and the savings that would be effected if the line closed. This request was always declined. The Committees much regretted this decision, not least because it limited British Rail's participation in the public hearing."
I do not have the time to go into those matters tonight, but I would urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully the detailed financial arguments presented by the TUCCs. Those arguments are unique because no TUCC in the past, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to untangle British Rail's financial case.
Much has been said about the cost of repairing the Ribblehead viaduct, but all that I want to say tonight is that I will contrast the wanton neglect of it with the repair work that has just been done to the 40-arch Welwyn viaduct in Hertfordshire as featured in Railnews in November 1986. That viaduct has been waterproofed in eight weekends at a cost of £160,000. The article states:
"This will protect its brickwork from damage by water penetrating from the track above, and had the work not been done now the cost of repairing long term damage to the Viaduct would have been many times greater."
No wonder the TUCCs said:
"The Committees were surprised that British Rail did not take the opportunity to replace the waterproof membrane when it singled the track over the Ribblehead Viaduct in January 1985."
Over the past two years we have had so many conflicting reports of the cost of repairing this viaduct, and, indeed, the other structures along the route, that I have come to the conclusion that we must have an independent consultant's report on it, commissioned by the Minister. How can my hon. Friend reach a sound conclusion if there is so much doubt about the structural and engineering soundness of the line? Therefore, I must press my hon. Friend most strongly tonight to commission a firm of internationally renowned structural engineers to carry out a full independent study of the Ribblehead viaduct and the other viaducts and tunnels along the route so that we can have definitive answers, once and for all, on the real repair costs and thereby settle this argument for ever.
Although British Rail was reluctant to produce figures on the line, happily many other organisations were keen to submit financial evidence. I have just received a letter from the secretary of the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Line Association, which states:
"I think the most important topic at the moment is the British Rail press release of December 22nd. This is said to be a statement of finance upon which the closure proposal is based. We think the figures are misleading, and this statement deserves very close examination.
A few points are: it mixes Capital Expenditure in with the Revenue position; it ignores the cost of the proposed alternative rail and bus services; it offsets Interest and Depreciation of as yet unbuilt Sprinter units against Current Revenue; it says only 10 per cent. of passengers are making `essential' journeys— as if that is relevant! In fact this means that as 90 per cent. of passengers must be travelling for the pleasure of the Settle and Carlisle itself, 90 per cent. of Revenue would not transfer to the proposed alternative service, i.e. closure would mean a loss in income of £900,000 per year.
436
In short, this statement is a woefully inadequate presentation of the BR case for closure, yet it is all that members of the public are being allowed to examine."
I entirely agree with that statement, and I ask my hon. Friend to use his powers to examine the financial case much more closely than can Back-Bench Members.
Also of particular significance is the case presented by Mr. Album, a solicitor acting for the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Line Association. His financial memorandum amply exposes the illogicalities and inconsistencies in British Rail's financial case and, as I know that my hon. Friend has a copy of that memorandum, I urge him to study it very closely indeed. If he does, he will come to the same conclusion as the TUCCs, namely:
"On the basis of the financial evidence submitted at the public hearings by objectors and, in particular, that submitted by the Joint County Councils and the Joint Action Committee and in the absence of any detailed financial information or submission from British Rail, the Committees were convinced that there was no case for closing the line on financial grounds."
Indeed, the committees came to the opposite view, namely:
"It is the unequivocal view of both Committees that the assets which comprise the infrastructure of the Settle to Carlisle line should be fully exploited by all the appropriate sectors of British Rail— InterCity, Provincial, Parcels and Freight— for the benefit of customers and to maximise revenue."
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I turn to the marketing of this line—or rather the lack of marketing, which has been British Rail's approach in the past. British Rail has discovered to its surprise that, with a minimum of promotion, a market for the line clearly exists. British Rail should be congratulated on its marketing initiative, small and under-resourced as it is, but the results have been spectacular. We now have evidence that the line has doubled its income in the last year and a record number of trains are now running on it. The TUCCs' report states:
"It is acknowledged within British Rail that the Settle to Carlisle line is, in relative terms, one of the provincial sector's most financially successful lines in that it more than covers its operating costs."
But the report went on to say:
"It has been firmly established that the line ranks as a marketable product with long term growth potential within British Rail's network provided the will is there."
On Monday of this week my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism gave a special £230,000 cash grant to boost tourism in the north of England, with an additional £20,000 to boost tourism in Cumbria. That initiative is widely welcomed by my constituents, but there is no point in adopting that aggressive marketing stance if British Rail does not exploit to the full the potential of this line of tourism and related activities.
My constituents and my hon. Friends know that the Carlisle to Settle line offers an opportunity for sustained growth and, with it, increased efficiency and profitability. We all conclude just what the TUCCs unanimously concluded:
"Whereas British Rail did not make a detailed case for the closure of the Settle to Carlisle line, the Joint County Councils, the Joint Action Committee and, indeed, hundreds of individual objectors convinced the Committees that there is an overwhelmingly strong case for its retention."
When my hon. Friend studies the report, I am sure that he will come to exactly the same conclusion.
Mr. John Watson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) have consent to speak from the hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) and the Minister?
12.1 am
Mr. John Watson: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I can be quite brief because I simply wish to make two points that may not have been fully aired in the debate during the past year. First, it is now almost 20 years since this line was last considered for closure. In 1967, the conclusion reached was that the line should remain open.
It is instructive to look at what has happened to the passenger figures in the 20 years since then. About 230 passengers used the line from Settle station in my constituency in July 1967. In July 1985, the last year for which figures are reliably available, the number was 1,470. That is an increase of 540 per cent. in 20 years. For Skipton, the figure 20 years ago was 640 passengers per week. In 1985 that figure was 3,860—an increase of 503 per cent.
It seems rather perverse that at a time of falling passenger numbers and revenues across Britain as a whole, British Rail should now be seeking to close the one line that has seen such a dramatic increase in its passenger flow.
Secondly, I should like to comment upon the nature of the decision that my hon. Friend the Minister will shortly have to take. When the need for such a decision first became apparent about six years ago, it seemed that it would be a local affair. The line was remote, rural, in the north and losing money. Its closure was judged to be a matter of little concern, other than to local Members of Parliament who would be troubled, and it was felt that that would be the end of it. However, by 1984 the scale of things had changed. By then the coming decision was seen as highly symbolic of the Government's attitude to railways in general. Now the climate has moved beyond even that. It is now a decision about what kind of railway system Britain should have. A decision to close the line now would be consistent only with a policy of minimum service, doubtful arithmetic and rural decline. A decision to retain the line would be a true acknowledgement of the environmental, economic and historic value of our complete railway network. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that latter course.
12.3 am
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I should like to thank hon. Members for the debate this evening and for the interesting points which have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has put his views and those of his constituents robustly, as he usually does; I should add that he has frequently done so to me privately. I have noted the views that have been expressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall take them into consideration.
As my hon. Friend will know, I have already travelled on the line myself and admired the beauty of the countryside through which it passes. It crosses magnificent viaducts and bridges that are a tribute to the skill and sacrifice of the engineers and the work forces who built
438
them more than 100 years ago. I have also had a chance to talk to local people and to hear their views about the line at first hand.
My main function tonight is to listen to the arguments, rather than to discuss their merits. As the House will recognise, I must be careful not to prejudice the final decision on the case before all the evidence has been fully considered. My hon. Friend. will recognise that it would be improper for me to express my view.
The TUCCs are independent bodies set up on a regional basis to represent the interests of all rail users. The TUCC or, in the case of the Settle-Carlisle line. the two TUCCs, must consider the objections and report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the hardship which would be caused by the proposed closure and on ways in which it might be alleviated. They may hold public hearings to receive oral evidence from objectors and representations from British Rail. As my hon. Friend knows, they have certainly done a thorough job on that.
In reaching a decision on whether to allow the line to be closed, my right hon. Friend must consider the TUCCs' report on hardship together with all other relevant factors, including wider social and economic considerations.
Mr. Robert Adley: Inadvertently, I was not allowed my one-minute say on this. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's decision will be a litmus test of the Government's commitment to the railway and the heritage? Does he further accept that large numbers of people in this House and beyond regard the closure of the line as unthinkable, unspeakable and unacceptable?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has, as always, put his views succinctly and forcefully and I have noted them.
In this case Briitish Rail proposed closure because of the heavy maintenance now required on the viaducts, bridges and tunnels on the line. Each of these has been assessed by the board's civil engineers. They estimate that they need to spend almost £1 million every year for the foreseeable future to maintain them to the required standard for passenger use. The immediate problem is the need for urgent heavy repairs to the Ribblehead viaduct, which has deteriorated recently because of exposure to harsh weather. British Rail estimates that between £2·7 million and—4·3 million needs to be spent on the viaduct now to restore it to a condition which would make it suitable for long-term passenger train use. It also says that modern rolling stock and radio signalling should be introduced to ensure that passenger services can continue at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers.
British Rail did not make its financial case available in time for the TUCC hearings. The statute did not require it to do so. The hearings were concerned with hardship, not finance. But it is my right hon. Friend's responsibility and mine to consider the financial aspects together with the other issues. British Rail submitted its case last December and published a summary. I understand that Sir Robert Reid, chairman of British Rail, has now agreed that the full case should also be made publicly available. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
I am also aware of the calls for independent scrutiny of British Rail's estimates—something for which my hon. Friend expressly called in his speech. I have heard what he said and I think he is right. It would be helpful to consider carefully the best way to ensure some independent

439
assessment of the costs. I am in no way suggesting that there is any deception by British Rail, but I recognise the widespread unease and the feeling that these estimates should be subject to an independent check. Perhaps the best way I can proceed is to talk to the joint local authorities' steering committee in the area about what independent group it feels would be appropriate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept the view expressed by the great majority of people in Cumbria that the matter should not be decided exclusively on financial grounds but should be based primarily on the county's heritage? Everyone wants to retain the line basically for that reason.
Mr. Mitchell: I shall of course take the heritage aspect into account, as will my right hon. Friend, but I believe that there are much wider considerations than simply the heritage in the minds of those in Cumbria who are callng for the line to be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border succinctly expressed a number of those considerations.
If my right hon. Friend agrees to closure, British Rail proposes that the present services between Leeds and Carlisle should be replaced by a service with new Sprinter diesel multiple units via Giggleswick and Carnforth. Giggleswick is just over one mile from the centre of the town of Settle.
The line runs through the areas of the north-eastern and north-western England TUCCs. Those bodies have produced a joint report for my right hon. Friend. I should like to pay tribute to the two committees for all their hard work in preparing that document. The report unequivocally recommends that my right hon. Friend should refuse consent to the closure of the line, on the grounds of the hardship that would he caused to the local communities and others, including tourists. My right hon. Friend and I will pay close attention to what the TUCCs have said and balance it against British Rail's case for closure. I think that the whole House would wish me to put on record our appreciation of the work that those committees have done.
As required by the Transport Act 1968, we must also have regard to the wider social and economic considerations. I cannot at this stage give a comprehensive list of what all those considerations will be, but they will certainly include the effect of closure on the local economy and on tourism. There is evidence that over two thirds of
440
passengers travel on the line simply to enjoy the ride and that over 90 per cent. of the journeys are for leisure purposes. We shall take into account the effect of closure on the various historic structures along the line. If the line is to remain open, the funding implications need careful study. Because of my right hon. Friend's role in considering the case, neither he nor I can lead a fundraising campaign. We are in a quasi-judicial position. Nevertheless, we need to establish whether contributions to the upkeep of the line are likely to be available from sources other than the public service obligation grant.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that the financial performance of the line should be subject to the most careful scrutiny before any decision on closure is reached. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Those are just some of the significant issues that my right hon. Friend and I shall need to consider very carefully before reaching our decision. We appreciate that the line's future needs to be settled as quickly as possible. However, this is a large and complex case, and we must allow ourselves sufficient time to consider properly all the various factors and possibilities. I cannot therefore tell hon. Members when we shall be in a position to issue a decision, but I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend and I will take this case most seriously and that there will be no decision until we have given the most careful consideration to all the relevant evidence.
Perhaps I may add, on a personal basis, that I have already visited the line and attended three public meetings in Carlisle, Appleby—at the Moot hall—and Settle, and that I have also visited several halt stations and crawled over the Ribblehead viaduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will know that I am keenly aware of the very strong feelings both locally and nationally about this line.
That urges me on to make the most careful assessment of the various points that have been put to us, in terms of hardship and a critical and careful examination of British Rail's financial case, and also in terms of the wider economic considerations that affect towns like Appleby. I have vivid recollections of a meeting in the Moot hall in Appleby that was very—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ENERGY
  Coal Board Houses
  Coal Board Houses
  Desulphurisation Plant
  Desulphurisation Plant
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Spain
  Spain
  Commodities (Imports and Exports)
  Commodities (Imports and Exports)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Racial Incidents
  Racial Incidents
  Fire Stations
  Fire Stations
  Licensing
  Licensing
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Wapping (Dispute)
  Wapping (Dispute)
  Police (Photographs)
  Police (Photographs)
  Police (Armed Patrols)
  Police (Armed Patrols)
  Police (Helicopters)
  Police (Helicopters)
  Police (Wrongful Acts)
  Police (Wrongful Acts)
  Passports
  Passports
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Inspections
  School Inspections
  Schools (Finance)
  Schools (Finance)
  School Population
  School Population
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Boarding
  Boarding
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Meningococcal Infections
  Meningococcal Infections
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Single Payments Cases
  Single Payments Cases
  Prisoners (Maltreatment)
  Prisoners (Maltreatment)
WALES
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Chest Consultants
  Chest Consultants
  Capital and Improvement Grants
  Capital and Improvement Grants
  ADAS
  ADAS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  EI Salvador
  EI Salvador
  Shell Tanker (Attack)
  Shell Tanker (Attack)
  Soviet Jews
  Soviet Jews
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Five Continents Peace Initiative
  Five Continents Peace Initiative
  BBC Scotland
  BBC Scotland
  Meeting with Philip Habib
  Meeting with Philip Habib
  Middle East Association
  Middle East Association
  BBC External Services
  BBC External Services
  Diplomats
  Diplomats
  Fernando Perez (Abduction)
  Fernando Perez (Abduction)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  South Africa
  South Africa
THE ARTS
  English Regional Arts Association
  English Regional Arts Association
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Purchasing Procedures
  Government Purchasing Procedures
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Premium Bond Draws
  Premium Bond Draws
  Inland Revenue (Cash Limit)
  Inland Revenue (Cash Limit)
PRIME MINISTER
  Young Conservatives Conference
  Young Conservatives Conference
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  State Security
  State Security
  Fernando Perez (Abduction)
  Fernando Perez (Abduction)
ENVIRONMENT
  Conifers (Air Pollution)
  Conifers (Air Pollution)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Derelict Land Grant
  Derelict Land Grant
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  GLC (Abolition)
  GLC (Abolition)
  London Boroughs (Expenditure)
  London Boroughs (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Coal Board Houses
  Coal Board Houses
  Minespoil
  Minespoil
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Land Register
  Land Register
  Opinion Polls
  Opinion Polls
TRANSPORT
  Road Markings
  Road Markings
  Motorways (Compensation)
  Motorways (Compensation)
  M42 (Noise)
  M42 (Noise)
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Accident Investigation and Prevention Teams
  Accident Investigation and Prevention Teams
  Cherished Numbers
  Cherished Numbers
  Local Government Finance Bill
  Local Government Finance Bill
  A1-M1 Link
  A1-M1 Link
EMPLOYMENT
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Manpower Services Commission Schemes
  Manpower Services Commission Schemes
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Duke of Argyll
  Duke of Argyll
  Scottish Prison Disturbances
  Scottish Prison Disturbances
  Salmon Poachers
  Salmon Poachers
  Travelling People
  Travelling People
  Dornoch Procurator Fiscal
  Dornoch Procurator Fiscal
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Kilmarnock and Ayr (Procurator Fiscal Office)
  Kilmarnock and Ayr (Procurator Fiscal Office)
  Suspects (Tape Recording)
  Suspects (Tape Recording)
  State Security
  State Security
  Official Secrets Acts
  Official Secrets Acts
  BBC, Glasgow (Search Warrant)
  BBC, Glasgow (Search Warrant)
SCOTLAND
  Edinburgh Castle
  Edinburgh Castle
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Student Support
  Student Support
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  Torness Nuclear Power Station
  Torness Nuclear Power Station
  Electricity Sales
  Electricity Sales
  Sir Norman Macfarlane
  Sir Norman Macfarlane
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Scottish NFU
  Scottish NFU
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Caterpillar Tractor Company
  Caterpillar Tractor Company
  Agriculture (Prospects)
  Agriculture (Prospects)
  Granton Gas Works
  Granton Gas Works
  West Fife (Pit Closures)
  West Fife (Pit Closures)
  Rate Reform (Crofters)
  Rate Reform (Crofters)
  Housing
  Housing
  Scottish Lithotripter Centre
  Scottish Lithotripter Centre
  Paper Mill, Irvine
  Paper Mill, Irvine
  Scottish School of Physical Education
  Scottish School of Physical Education
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  CBI (Scotland)
  CBI (Scotland)
  Manufacturing Job Losses
  Manufacturing Job Losses
  Jobs Costs
  Jobs Costs
  Springburn Railway Workshops
  Springburn Railway Workshops
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Oil Industry
  Oil Industry
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Aberdeen (Common Good Fund)
  Aberdeen (Common Good Fund)
  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Guinness plc
  Guinness plc
  Dalgety Foods
  Dalgety Foods
  Department of Registers
  Department of Registers
  New Towns (Manufacturing Jobs)
  New Towns (Manufacturing Jobs)
  Wildlife (Conservation)
  Wildlife (Conservation)
  Local Authorities (Personal Social Services)
  Local Authorities (Personal Social Services)
  State Security
  State Security
  Cows (Slaughter)
  Cows (Slaughter)
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Suckler Cow Premium
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Blood Donors
  Blood Donors
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Planning Research
  Planning Research
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Young Physically Disabled People
  Young Physically Disabled People
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Wheelchair Service
  Wheelchair Service
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Methaemoglobinaemia
  Methaemoglobinaemia
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Meningococcal Infections
  Meningococcal Infections
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Hard-to-heat Designations
  Hard-to-heat Designations
  Hospitals (Cheshire)
  Hospitals (Cheshire)
  Neasden Hospital
  Neasden Hospital
  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Breast and Cervical Cancer
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Surplus Food
  Surplus Food
  Beef
  Beef
  Quotas
  Quotas
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
DEFENCE
  DROPS
  DROPS
  Merchant Ships (Design)
  Merchant Ships (Design)
  United States Forces
  United States Forces
  Service Children's Schools, Germany
  Service Children's Schools, Germany
  Project Definition
  Project Definition
  Sir Frank Cooper
  Sir Frank Cooper
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

H.R.H. THE DUKE OF YORK INTRODUCED
His Royal Highness Andrew Albert Christian Edward, CVO, having been created Baron Killyleagh, Earl of Inverness and Duke of York, was, in his Robes, introduced in the following order:
THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD Air Chief Marshal Sir John Gingell
GARTER PRINCIPAL KING OF ARMS Sir Colin Cole (carrying the Patent)
THE EARL, MARSHAL The Duke of Norfolk
THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN The Marquess of Cholmondeley
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF KENT
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK (carrying his Writ of Summons)

His ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER
His Royal Highness, standing, presented his Letters Patent and the Writ of Summons to the Lord Chancellor at the Woolsack, who delivered them to the Reading Clerk: the same were read at the Table.
Then His Royal Highness, at the Table, took the Oath required to be taken by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 [31 & 32 Victoria, cap. 72] and subscribed the Test Roll, after which His Royal Highness, having been placed in his Chair on the left of the Throne, rising, thrice saluted the Lord Chancellor, standing by the Woolsack, who acknowledged each salute. His Royal Highness then descended from his Chair and shook hands with the Lord Chancellor and was conducted from the Chamber.

British Aerospace: Value of Exports
2.44 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the annual value of the British Aerospace exports.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in the 10 months to October 1986 the industry's exports were worth £308 billion, an increase of 10.6 per cent. on the same period in 1985.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely encouraging reply. Can he tell the House what countries take the largest proportion of those exports by value?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, the United States of America takes by far the largest share. Other leading export markets are West Germany and Saudi Arabia.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what proportion of those exports are financed under United Kingdom Government guarantees?
Lord Beaverbrook: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, this is a very easy supplementary question. Is the noble Lord aware, and does he agree with me, that approximately 25 per cent.—I do not have the exact figure, but no doubt the noble Lord will give it—are under ECGD guarantees? Does not the noble Lord agree that that is very important assistance to British Aerospace? Will the noble Lord give, on behalf of the Government, an unequivocal commitment that the assistance to British Aerospace will continue in its present form?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course, we are delighted with the industry's progress in the export market and in particular the progress of the British Aerospace Corporation. The Government continue to support the industry.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in view of the contribution of the airbus in helping to develop the success of British Aerospace, will the Government give an assurance that any aid that is required for future development of the airbus will continue to be given, as it has in the past?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the application by British Aerospace for launch-aid of £750 million was received by the Department of Trade and Industry on 20th October last year. A detailed appraisal of the commercial, financial and technical aspects is now well advanced. The present aim is for the Government to reach a decision as soon as possible, in parallel with the other airbus partner governments.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, in view of the last two supplementary questions, is it not important that the House understands that the assistance given by Her Majesty's Government is no greater than the assistance given by governments of other countries? It is not as if the aerospace industry is receiving a special subsidy or subvention from Her Majesty's Government to advantage it over competitors. The industry is being put into the same position as its rivals.
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, the Government's aid to the industry, and to the British Aerospace Corporation in particular, conforms with the general rules laid down under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the American envoys visited this country to make representations to Her Majesty's Government about the special launch-aid given to the European airbus—in particular the proposed £700 million to finance the next version—did the Government succeed in convincing our friends that this did not constitute an infringement of the GATT rules or any other international agreements on fair trading practices?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, and we pointed out that the support given to the airbus in the past and any support for the future will be no more than that received by major United States companies who benefit from substantial support from the United States Government through military and other programmes.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in the figures that he gave us for the breakdown of exports can my noble friend say what part is played by aircraft parts, and more particularly aircraft engines?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if my noble friend would like to table a Question, I shall be very pleased to answer it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether this is a company that will come under the aegis of the American audit about which we heard something yesterday?
Lord Beaverbrook: Not without notice, my Lords.

Horticultural Training Schemes
2.48 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: 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 to what extent Manpower Services Commission schemes include horticultural training and cultivation of produce on vacant local authority allotment plots.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, horticultural training opportunities are provided on both youth and adult training programmes. In 1985–86 some 11,000 YTS places were available in the standard industrial classification category covering horticulture and agriculture. I hope that many more people will have the opportunity to train in horticultural skills on the new job training scheme. Our training programmes are concerned with achieving vocational skills and qualifications and not with the use of particular training locations. Therefore we do not keep information on the use of vacant local authority allotment plots.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some doubt about the period of time allowed for this training? Is he further aware that
644
while it is no substitute for a real job, there is the possibility of employment or of setting up small businesses, and in any case that when an individual has had an allotment plot he has subseqently gained an insight into a healthy recreation which may be to his family's advantage?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, training is not a substitute for a real job. Very often, however, it is the pathway to a real job. One must appreciate that without the right supply of skills from individuals, the jobs will not come about. Under the new job training scheme qualifications there will, for example, be people taking the agricultural board's craftsman certificate in tractor driving, milking and stock handling. There will also be national proficiency test council awards in crop spraying, grading and packing fruit, and many of the skills which are necessary in those areas.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the Minister endeavour to contact local authorities to make sure that some of them are making good use of vacant allotment plots to assist with this scheme?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am concerned to ensure that both young people and adults have the right skills and therefore that we provide the right training. I suspect that the use of allotment plots does not fall within my department's area of responsibility, but I hear very clearly what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of the young people who are taking horticultural training relates to young women?
Lord Young of Graffham: Alas, my Lords, not without notice. I shall certainly look into the matter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the capacity to dig an allotment is limited to heroes and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and that it would not be a fair test for a YTS youngster?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, let me say at the outset that neither is it a fair test for a Minister of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why local authority allotment plots are vacant?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is surely a matter for the local authority and not for the Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that growing vegetables on an allotment, whether or not it belongs to a local authority, can represent a very considerable supplementary income to a family because home-grown vegetables are worth a great deal of money? Is it not therefore very important that local authorities and others should make it possible for people to use their skills in that way?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that I should wander into the area of supplementary income for people in this country. I am quite sure that in themselves allotments are a very good thing.
Lord Somers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in these enlightened days there is no such thing as manpower but that the designation should be "person power"?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the light of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will the Minister reply to this question: does he feel that horticultural training is adequately covered in the schemes that he has in mind? Is there no further progress that needs to be made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are some 11,000 places under the YTS scheme in the standard industrial classification covering horticulture and agriculture, and that seems to me to be a very good contribution in that a two-year training period is provided under YTS. As I have already told your Lordships, I hope very much that under JTS (the training that we are offering in the main for those under 25 who have been out of work for more than six months) we shall have an opportunity of giving many more of our citizens training in both horticulture and agriculture, and indeed I hope in all employable skills.

Home Insulation Grants
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the factors that induced them to announce the withdrawal of the existing house insulation grants.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, home insulation grants have not been withdrawn; they are being targeted at those most in need. The proposed new scheme would withdraw the general rate of grant at 66 per cent. but would extend the availability of the more generous 90 per cent. grant.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But does it not mean that many people who are now able to apply for the grant will be barred under the new ruling and that that will be a disincentive for them to have their houses insulated? At a time when our non-renewable energy resources are fast depleting, could not that have an adverse effect on our energy resources and further exacerbate a deteriorating situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that by targeting the resources to those most in need we are making the best use of our energy resources. The more extended grant will be available not only to those elderly or disabled people who already receive a 90 per cent. grant but to all householders who are in receipt of housing benefit or supplementary benefit. By
646
definition, those must be the poorer people and the people most in need.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me how many people she expects to benefit from the new proposals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that the proposal will increase the potential number of people who can benefit from the 90 per cent. grant by about 70 per cent. Precise figures are not available. We think that the number of eligible householders will increase from 4.5 milliion to about 7 million. More detailed information will be available when the 1986 English House Conditions Survey figures become available.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that if the Government did more about home insulation there would be much less need for energy conservation and for the building of nuclear power stations? If our homes were properly insulated less energy would be used and therefore we could do away with some of the proposed power stations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the insulation arrangements which are being revised by the Government are intended to improve energy efficiency. The results of Energy Efficiency Year are still being considered but they already appear to prove that.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not a fact that this year's grant figure is to be less in real terms than it was last year? If that is so, how does it square with the dedication of the Secretary of State for Energy to the energy conservation programme, which he keeps reiterating?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have increased by 15 per cent. gross provisions to local authorities in the housing capital grant programme for 1987–88. There are obviously realigned priorities within that programme. One of our first priorities cannot be to assist well-to-do householders to save their money. The provision in the scheme announced last December should be enough to meet the expected demand from people who genuinely need help.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people in the building industry involved in insulation say that 80 per cent. of the people who were able to obtain a grant before the announcement was made will not be able to obtain it under the new arrangements? They are expecting a serious reduction in their own work load and further unemployment. Is that what the Government want?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during the eight years that the current scheme has been available we believe that most people able to take advantage of it have done so. Making grants available to new groups of people who could not otherwise afford insulation will expand the effective market.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any fall-back plan to deal with the fact that the more we insulate houses the more we expose ourselves to the danger of lung cancer from radon?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, only in Devon and Cornwall, I believe.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a question I asked one of her predeccessors a few years ago? Why is it still a rule that where a householder has insulated part of a house he is no longer eligible for a grant no matter what the need? Does not that penalise people who have helped themselves?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the existing scheme is designed to help people start from scratch or improve their existing insulation. There are also schemes which include draught-proofing. Future arrangements to help with the cost of draught-proofing materials are being considered by the government departments concerned, and they would be in addition to insulation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, with respect, not answered my question. If a householder has insulated the area above the kitchen, or it has been insulated in the past, that house is no longer eligible for a grant, no matter what the need of the householder. Is that not grossly unfair?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it depends upon the extent of the existing insulation. As I said, the existing scheme covers householders from scratch and improving existing insulation. If the existing insulation is less than 30 mm (about one inch) thick, it can be improved up to 100 mm.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, bearing in mind the sad fact of a by-election in Truro does the noble Baroness wish to reconsider her answer, "Only in Devon and Cornwall"?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I also said, "I believe".

Star Wars: Kinetic Kill System
2.59 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: 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 their participation in research for President Reagan's star wars project involves implicit acceptance of the objective of a kinetic kill system in space, as outlined recently by Mr. Caspar Weinberger, the first stage in the deployment of which is to be accomplished as early as 1993.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the aim of the SDI research programme is to assess the feasibility of strategic defences. The United States Administration have made it clear that no decisions on deployment, let alone on any particular system, have been taken.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that moderately reassuring reply. I hope that he
648
will not mind if I put three very short supplementary questions to him.
Noble Lords: One question!
Lord Gladwyn: First, is it not obvious that the "broad interpretation" of the ABM treaty on which Mr. Weinberger's plan is based, whereby you reverse what the treaty says on the simple grounds that new techniques now exist for accomplishing what it expressly forbids—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Gladwyn:—is a repudiation of the treaty and must be so considered by all fair minded people? In the second place—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Gladwyn: —will not the Government also agree that if this interpretation is approved it will result in a failure of the arms limitation talks at Geneva? Finally, if Mr. Weinberger's plan is thereafter put into operation—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Gladwyn:—would it not result inevitably in a kind of nuclear war in space which some people in America would probably desire?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I can answer the noble Lord by referring to the second of the four points which were agreed between my right honourable friend and the President the year before last. It is that SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation.
Earl Ferrers. My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was not out of order in asking three questions instead of one—and reading the lot?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, technically yes, but the noble Lord has considerable knowledge in these matters and I try to extend as much understanding as I can to people in this position.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I have frequently heard more than one supplementary question put by the initiator.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many of us are very gratified to hear his answer, given that the first Question this afternoon by one of his noble friends was read out at dictation speed?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it is certainly no part of my business to be gratified one way of the other by what noble Lords feel at any time. My job is to interpret the wishes of the House, and indeed the customs of the House as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. This I was seeking to do to the best of my ability.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I return to the Question and ask the noble Lord to what extent he understands the ABM Treaty to have been re-interpreted by the United States Administration? If it has been re-interpreted, as we understand, without mutual agreement between the two parties to the treaty, is it not the case that the testing and the deployment of SDI technology can take place? It is very important that we should get that clear.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware of any change in the United States position in this matter. As your Lordships will be aware, we have consistently welcomed assurances that while broad interpretation of the treaty is legally sustainable, the SDI programme is being conducted within a narrow interpretation. We are not aware of any new decision and we look forward to continuing consultations with our American friends.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the strategic defence initiative is one of the few methods of defence that kills only incoming ballistic missiles and not human beings?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, unhappily, we have no such assurance as yet because we are still embarked upon the research programme.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Lord Kennet: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if what the Americans are doing was being done by the Soviet Union, the Americans would declare that it was in breach of the ABM treaty? Is he further aware that support of star wars is incompatible with a genuine search for peace? Will the noble Lord look again at the Government's policy in this respect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Soviet Union is indeed embarked upon a major research programme into matters of this kind. It has been doing so for 10 or 15 years at least. That is what makes the position so curious.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government confirm that on Sunday Mr. Shultz, speaking expressly for the President, said that there would be no change in American SDI plans before further consultations with the allies? When will those consultations take place? Who will handle them for us? It should be the Foreign Office, not the Ministry of Defence.
Lastly, will the Government ensure that at those consultations the full political and strategic implications of SDI for Europe and the whole world are at last taken into account lest, in the words of Sir Geoffrey Howe, political decisions are pre-empted by the march of technology?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we remain in close and continuous touch with the United States Government on these matters.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, my question arises out of that last answer. I refer to the speech made by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe a week or two ago, in which he said that it remains crucial to seek the answers to R & D questions before reaching conclusions on what may be technically possible. Is that to be dealt with independently by Her Majesty's Government? Have we the machinery to do so considering that General Abrahamson, the director of the SDI office, has said that no one can prove it cannot work which means that he is set on a course of proving a negative?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the position of the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government was set out very clearly when the Prime Minister met the President in December 1985. It is encapsulated in the four points with which I suspect the noble Lord is familiar.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two Short Debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. As it is customary that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes, and in the case of my noble friend, slightly longer. But I know that the House will appreciate it if noble Lords would keep their speeches to a limit compatible with the spirit of these Short Debates.

Billiards (Abolition of Restrictions) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish as regards England and Wales the restrictions by way of licensing or otherwise on the public playing of billiards, bagatelle and other games of the like kind under related power of entry. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Heating Problems: Strategy Proposal
3.9 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to call attention to the case for a comprehensive strategy to end the problems of maintaining and conserving an adequate and efficient level of heating; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am bound to say that during the exchanges at Question Time this afternoon I almost thought that the debate

651
had started and I felt like moving that we should perhaps defer it to another date. However, I think that there is still more to be said on this subject and I shall continue.
During the past few weeks, the nation's attention has been focused once again on the impact of winter conditions on the elderly and other vulnerable groups. Because of the way we have managed these annual crises, the main debate has been almost wholly on the social security implications. These are, of course, important. It has to be said that for all the reasons we have listed in recent debates, the allowances are not adequate, nor do they get to those people in dire need. Nor are they cost effective. For example, heating additions are uprated annually according to inflation but fuel increases have risen higher in recent years than inflation. Since some fuels are more expensive than others and some homes harder to heat than others, the proportion of income that poor people spend on fuel is higher than average. Nor is any account taken in the notional fuel element for supplementary benefit allowances of the standing charges for fuel.
For example, in 1977 the annual standing charge for gas was £6 per quarter but last year it was £39.60; for electricity it was £32.60. We know that for many thousands of homes both charges are relevant because people have gas central heating and electric lights. It means that for many families about £1.40 is already taken up and therefore the heating allowances begin to look even less adequate.
The recently implemented weekly allowance was welcome. By being limited to some supplementary benefit claimants it fails to recognise the plight of large numbers of poor families who do not qualify for supplementary benefit, the plight of people on contributory benefits or low wages or the plight of pensioners living on basic pensions plus a small occupational pension. There are many others who do not identify themselves as suffering from hardship, either through pride or ignorance or for reasons concerned with the protection of privacy and so on. Therefore, the help does not reach those who probably need it the most. There is now widespread agreement that these measures are insufficient and inefficient and that something more is needed. My Motion is directed to that point.
We cannot continue to treat just the symptoms of these problems. The time has now come when we must treat the cause. The central cause of our domestic energy inefficiency is that a comparatively high proportion of the housing stock is old, poorly insulated, inefficiently heated and very often occupied by low income and socially vulnerable households. Three-quarters of the UK housing stock was built before 1965 and hence was not subject to any minimum insulation or heating standards. All that housing is inherently energy inefficient.
Because of its age, 40 per cent. of the UK housing is of solid-wall construction. Virtually none of the walls has been insulated, although I understand such walls lose heat at over three times the rate of the walls of new homes. The uninsulated roofs of dwellings constructed before the establishment of minimum insulation standards commonly lose heat at five to seven times the rate for newly built homes. According to the audits
652
for Great Britain for 1985, 64 per cent. of UK dwellings have below the Government's currently recommended level of loft insulation.
The problem of draughtiness in our houses is equally serious, particularly in older dwellings with ill-fitting windows and doors, unrestricted flues, draughty loft hatches, gaps in the floorboards and cracks in the building structure itself. According to the same audit report, 61 per cent. of UK dwellings lack draughtproofing. I understand that later speakers may wish to develop that aspect.
About 60 per cent. of our housing stock is of cavity wall construction and 90 per cent. of those walls are uninsulated. Again I understand that those walls generally lose heat at just under three times the rate of new cavity walls. Indeed, 52 per cent. of UK dwellings lack cavity wall insulation.
As a result of this poor record of insulation, heating systems are expensive to run and ineffective and in winter the British people live in some of the coldest homes in Europe. Therefore, for too many of our people the problems of what has come to be known as fuel poverty are real and the numbers affected have increased substantially in recent years. Nor does fuel povery affect only the poor. It is a known fact that hundreds of thousands of families with incomes above the normal definitions of poverty cannot maintain adequate warmth in their homes. However, the problems of fuel poverty are most acute when low incomes are combined with high heating costs. I understand that it is called the "British heating problem".
In recent days I have been asked: "What is the difference between fuel poverty and other poverty? Why call it fuel poverty? Why not just call it poverty?" The answer must be that, of the three main items of expenditure, certainly for pensioners and low income families—namely food, housing and fuel—the factors influencing the cost of keeping warm, the fuel factors, are either beyond the households' control or can be altered only through capital expenditure. In other words, the main difference between fuel poverty and the wider poverty is that it is not only a problem of means not meeting needs, which requires more income, but it is also a problem which requires an element of capital expenditure.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I should like to make the point that there are two kinds of fuel. Well-fed people do not need so much warmth as badly-fed people. He stressed the point about food and fuel but I think that food is a very important point, particularly for old people, who should be well-fed.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept that, but in the context of my remarks I was trying to distinguish between fuel poverty and poverty.
Simply to pour money into poor homes and then out again into the atmosphere, as well as being socially necessary is an inefficient use of resources. The fact is that no successful scheme of only financial assistance has yet been found, and I doubt whether it ever can be found given the circumstances that I have related so far.

653
What is needed is a system of measurement that establishes the heating needs of the variety of households that exist, allied to a planned programme of conservation measures—say a five- or a 10-year programme—designed to raise the standards of heating in homes throughout the country. I know that much thought and research concerning this aspect of the problem has already been carried out by government departments, voluntary organisations, university researchers and others workers studying the problems. I recently read a detailed study of a proposed method of measurement. It was written by Brenda Boardman for the Right to Fuel Campaign and it certainly made a lot of sense to me. While I do not have time to go through the whole study, I shall in defence of my argument and in support of my case briefly outline the main features of the proposal.
The proposal is for a cost of warmth index. That index for fuel poverty sufferers is based on seven main factors that would determine the cost of keeping warm a specific house for a specific family. They are as follows. The first is heat loss through the building fabric; that can be measured. The second is ventilation loss, again through draughty and poorly maintained houses; that can be quantified. The third is the efficiency of the heating system, and that can be assessed and measured. The fourth is the cost of fuel. It is estimated that the cost of a unit of delivered energy can vary by a factor of more than four between different fuels; that can certainly be measured. The fifth is the external temperature; that indicates how much the temperature has to be raised to achieve a comfortable temperature indoors. The sixth is the internal temperature for any given activity range. The temperature that most people find comfortable can be predicted. The seventh is the hours of occupancy, the assumption being that when the house is occupied it needs to be warm. Again that is capable of being measured.
Those seven factors—four of which relate to the building and heating system, one of which relates to the local climate and two of which are family-specific—can be used to measure the heating allowance necessary to maintain warmth in any specific home. This is much more relevant than the notional figure which is used at the moment to assess allowances for supplementary benefit. These factors can also be used to determine what improvements are necessary to increase thermal efficiency, to reduce ventilation losses and to improve the heating system. Therefore it could be applied to a programme of conservation measures. It is sensible that such a cost of warmth index can be applied to both those aspects of the problem.
In a Newsletter of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, the Fifth Fuel, the right honourable Peter Walker MP, Secretary of State for Energy, said:
"1986—"The Great leap Forward". 1986 will be the year of the Great Leap Forward for energy saving in Britain, according to Energy Secretary, Peter Walker. The Government have designated it as Energy Efficiency Year, and a new promotional slogan—Get More for your Monergy—has been coined.".
We were all aware of the slogan "Monergy" and the campaign, the cost of which was debated at length both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
654
In the same newsletter, the Secretary of State asked his civil servants:
"to look overseas for examples of where energy conservation programmes are succeeding, in order to achieve his target that 'by the end of this Parliament, Britain should be at the top of the international league of energy efficiency, and not at the bottom'".
He does not have very long now to achieve that very laudable aim. What is the current situation? Our housing stock in Britain is one of the worst heated and insulated in Europe according to the up-to-date facts. The result is that as a nation we are paying billions of pounds more than we need on fuel bills every year, and still people live in cold, damp houses.
Government-led investment has declined dramatically since 1979; namely, from £31·2 million in 1979 on 632,000 local authority homes to a figure just over £15 million in 1985 on 80,000 local authority dwellings. As we have heard today, it is not absolutely certain that expenditure on insulation programmes will remain as it was, and certainly it will be reduced so far as concerns some families. Existing programmes of draught-proofing may be in danger due to a lack of funds unless some assurances are forthcoming. Such investment programmes must he restored and investment increased to meet the needs that I have tried to outline in my remarks so far.
In Newcastle, the City Council have developed special training programmes to ensure that social workers and housing staff can handle energy-related problems effectively. They have opened the first independent energy information centre. They have improved insulation and heating in 2,500 dwellings per year and actively supported all community initiatives to target draught-proofing measures on lower income households. In Birmingham, the City Council have launched a city-wide "Keep Birmingham Warm" campaign. They have pioneered standard energy conservation improvements for a variety of house types. They have supported community and voluntary organisations undertaking home insulation work for the elderly.
In Hackney (an inner London borough), the council has set up a special heating advice project to boost substantially claimant take-up of heating benefits. They have created new ways of investing private sector capital in heating improvements through a special tenant heating and insulation service. They have also adopted a 10 point action plan for follow-up by appropriate council departments. These councils have shown what can be done to ensure that Britain's homes become better heated and better insulated. Such schemes should be supported and other councils should be encouraged to introduce similar schemes. We have the expertise; certainly we have the energy, the materials and the manpower. In fact, it has been estimated that upwards of 50,000 jobs can be created by an effective programme of insulation and heating. We certainly have the incentives. I do not want to give any more long quotations but I have a document from Eurisol which says after outlining a number of facts:
"These facts alone make an overwhelming case for the thermal upgrading of our housing stock as a major contribution to both national energy saving and improved living standards. There is scope for saving 22 per cent. on the national domestic fuel bill, equivalent to £1·5 billion per annum.".
That must be well worthwhile in any programme.

655
What is needed now is an urgent new national energy drive for all the reasons that I have mentioned; namely, social, economic, employment, energy and environmental reasons. It is urgent for the jobless and for those who shiver or suffer hardship in cold homes during the winter. It is also urgent for our inner city areas and our environment. Whichever government are elected soon will be forced to take practical steps to come to grips with this problem and to develop the comprehensive strategy which my Motion calls for.
Much more can be said but my time is up. I hope that I have said enough to introduce the subject. I shall listen with great interest to the rest of the debate and I look forward to the Minister's response. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, first I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard for I may have interrupted his speech. I had put my name down to speak in this debate but I did not then know that I was to follow him. I am delighted to do so and I congratulate him on his Motion, which I entirely support.
I propose to contribute to the debate, I hope from another angle. My reasons for saying that is that on 5th November the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tabled an Unstarred Question which gave rise to an extremely interesting debate. The debate was concluded by a speech from the noble Baroness who will reply to this debate. Many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, were touched upon in that debate. I agree with him that no harm will be done if efforts now being made to improve the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, drew attention are reinforced and continued. If that is so, by next winter we shall be better equipped, not only as a result of insulation, draught-proofing, and double glazing but also, as I propose to show, as a result of an improved system of using off-peak electricity to meet the problem which the noble Lord described as "fuel poverty".
Noble Lords may wonder why I am interested in this matter. The fact is I was engaged in the electric supply industry in the East for many years. Off-peak electricity was then concerned with air conditioning. The reverse is the case here where off-peak electricity is needed to warm houses. I can further explain my interest by the fact that 30 years ago, with the help of the late lamented Lord Stonham, we were instrumental in introducing the words "supplementary benefit" to replace the words "national assistance". I had found during the course of my charitable work at that time in Edinburgh that many people were too proud to go on the parish for help; they would rather starve. The first step was to use the words which 30 years later are on everybody's lips when dealing with the underprivileged.
The words "supplementary benefit" are a very good yardstick by which to measure the extent to which poor people need assistance. Again, in collaboration with Lord Stonham, some years later we managed to drop purchase tax from storage-type heaters. At one time they attracted purchase tax. Coincident with the dropping of purchase tax on storage heaters was the nationalisation of electricity, which unfortunately
656
meant that in many areas very low off-peak tariffs were replaced by off-peak tariffs sometimes seven or 10 times the rates which applied in the early 1950s. I say that with some feeling because I lived in the area of the Clyde Valley Electricity Supply Company, whose basic load was based on hydropower, which is the cheapest form of energy of all. That collaboration worked well.
Following the removal of purchase tax from storage heaters, there was a brief boom in night storage heaters. Alas, the rise in the off-peak tariffs made them less attractive. I shall return to that matter later, because the burden of my contribution to this very useful debate is to suggest that our electricity tariffs are too high anyway.
When deciding to speak in this debate, it was difficult for me to know exactly what I should say until I had heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I have now heard his speech, and I entirely endorse it and the Motion.
I believe that lower off-peak rates and the provision of new types of night storage heater would go a long way towards alleviating the troubles to which the noble Lord referred. I carefully studied the speech of my noble friend Lady Hooper on 5th November last year and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when he put down his Unstarred Question. I believe I am right in saying that both speeches dealt very freely with the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has referred. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say in response to the noble Lord.
We know that a great deal of assistance is being given in the way of draught-proofing, insulation and all the other simple remedies which can be met by builders. However, what can we do about the price of electricity? Reference has been made to double-glazing, but it is not always successful. Under-floor heating has also been mentioned; I think I am right in saying that it has not been found to be universally satisfactory and that a lot of heat is wasted because of the absence of control switch gear.
It was fortuitous that about 10 days ago my electrician handed me a catalogue on the products of the Dimplex Company. I hold no brief for or any interest in the company, except that in my opinion it is probably the most experienced company in domestic space heating in Britain and perhaps in the world. After the debate last November I remember talking to my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and asking them whether they could do anything to produce small storage-type heaters which would be sufficiently large to cope with a single room or a but-and-ben in which poor and underprivileged people live during the winter. As I say, I hold no brief for the Dimplex Company, but I am fascinated by its latest product which is called the XT ultra-slim and is more or less the product about which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I spoke two months or so ago. It is a small storage-type heater.
As my noble friend Lady Hooper said in her speech last November (at col. 1164 of the Official Report):
"Modern heating systems with proper heating controls—especially thermostats and time-clocks—are much more efficient than they were ten years ago".
I should like to know how Dimplex managed to get sufficient bulk into this slim heater to retain the heat.

657
In the 1950s I equipped an old house with the original type of storage heaters, which were enormously bulky and very heavy. I should be very interested to know—and I propose to find out—how this new type of slim heater retains the heat.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggests, the time has come for a campaign to develop the off-peak ideal from the angle of electricity supply. The off-peak use of electricity not only has a contribution to make in terms of convenience to the less privileged people, but in terms of electricity supply it can make a very useful contribution to cost. If only we could fill in the valley of poor offtake during the night hours, we could improve the overall load factor and the cost of electricity to everyone.
That gives rise to an angle of thought in this debate which I propose to develop. The campaign suggested by the noble Lord and I, which should be implemented, should also be considered from the point of view of the cost of electricity supply. I believe that domestic heating supplies by the electricity boards are too expensive. I have spoken to someone who uses the white meter system—a system which we all respect and which is very well used throughout the country. He said that he was not so sure that it was quite fair and he had a feeling that because he had a white meter his rate for the ordinary supply was much higher than it would otherwise have been. I think that the authorities might look into that.
On the question of supply, as I explained, the Clyde Valley company had advantages due to its basic load being on hydropower. We are always being told that nuclear power produces very cheap electricity. Indeed during the last peak period I believe that large quantities of power were purchased at a low price from the French, who have developed their nuclear fission to this extent. I ask my noble friend and her pundits to say to what extent these cheap purchases of power have been passed on to the underprivileged.
To take another angle on the cost of electricity, I should like to know to what extent overall costs are being affected by the enormous losses involved in the Arthur Scargill miners' strike. Are we still paying for that? Is any measure of the costs involved in that strike being carried to the underprivileged in keeping up off-peak tariffs? Perhaps the answer to that can be found quite easily. If the rates could be reduced, there would be more opportunity for the damp and the other troubles to which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, drew attention to be dealt with by this excellent type of heating.
There is another point to be considered. The catalogue that I have in my hand does not contain any prices. I have not asked what they are, but they cannot be cheap. In the campaign to which the noble Lord referred, is it possible in the benefits for those on supplementary benefit to provide that the capital costs of these small night storage heaters are supplemented, just as insulation, draught-proofing and so on are supplemented? In pursuing the possibility of lower unit costs for electricity, could some capital costs be provided by the state in the campaign to which the noble Lord has referred and which I and I know the rest of your Lordships hope will take place before another winter comes? It is too late now even if there is another cold snap.
658
I congratulate the noble Lord on the Motion, and I support it.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, pointed out, we have debated this subject recently and indeed on many occasions in the past. Nevertheless I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is quite right in introducing the Motion in view of what has so recently happened over the winter. He has also drawn the subject more widely than we debated it on the previous occasion. I should like to respond to the opportunity that this has given us by speaking on the subject within a wider framework.
I start with new buildings, because obviously the standards established for new buildings will determine the way in which people will heat their premises in future. The Department of the Environment has recently issued a consultative document on new building regulations. The document contains the department's views on what the heating regulations should be. Comments on the document are asked for by 31st March. I feel that it would be appropriate therefore to refer to the document in the course of this debate.
The objectives set out in that document seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. The proposals,
"aim to save in a cost-effective way about 20 per cent. of the energy required for space heating in a typical house and to improve energy efficiency in offices, shops and many other buildings".
They are, therefore, highly desirable. However, I feel that some difficulties arise from the way in which this is to be brought about. I hope that these will stimulate a good deal of comment.
So far as industrial and storage buildings are concerned, it is stated that because of the diversity in use of such buildings, while every encouragement should be given to achieve effective heating standards by good insulation and other means, nonetheless no minimal standards could be set. I think that this would be unwise. The fact is that every year some 9 million square metres of new industrial and storage space is constructed in this country. At least two-thirds of that is built speculatively—in other words, the use is not known in advance. I suggest that there is a strong case, at least in the speculative building of industrial and storage structures, to have minimum standards of heat conservation.
When it comes to residential buildings there is also a problem because here a concept of flexibility is introduced—the term "trade off" is used—as between different forms of heat insulation. It is suggested that it should be left to the builder to decide which form of insulation is introduced into a house so long as in total it conforms with the energy saving laid down, but I feel that this could be open to some doubt.
It is conceivable under these proposals, for example, that roof insulation would be omitted altogether because it might be claimed that other forms of insulation provided the necessary standard. I feel that the purchasers or occupiers of such new buildings should be assured under the new regulations of minimum standards of insulation for all the obvious features—roof insulation, hot water cylinders, doors,

659
windows, walls and so on. Those are the two points that I would make on the new building regulations.
In regard to the existing housing stock, we know from the many debates that we have had on the subject how extensive the deficiencies are. There are deficiencies in all sorts of respects, but we are concerned with the heating deficiencies. This has been clearly set out by the Government.
I should like here to quote a circular issued in August last year by the Department of Energy as part of Energy Efficiency Year. It refers to the deficiencies in insulation in the 20 million homes in the United Kingdom. It states:
"one in three is without a hot water cylinder jacket, 3 million have only one inch of loft insulation rather than the four inches now considered desirable, 9 million have unfilled cavity walls and 12 million have no draught stripping."
This is a very sad commentary on our existing housing stock. If anything were to demonstrate the validity of the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I think that these statistics emanating from the Government themselves do just that.
We know therefore that we have a real problem. I hope that we shall be advised by the noble Baroness when she replies to the debate that the Government have decided upon a clearly defined and positive strategy to tackle these problems within a measurable period of time. This is a question not only of promotion and publicity; there must be direct incentives to stimulate people to improve the standards in their homes. In this connection the revamping of the home insulation grants, which came up in a Question asked earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is relevant. I should have thought that this was just the wrong time to remove an incentive for householders and house occupiers to improve the insulation of their homes.
I am fully in support of extending the assistance provided to those on low incomes, and I should not like to suggest by any manner of means that the Government should go back on what they have done to extend this in that respect, but I feel that they ought to think again about withdrawing this incentive from other householders. I feel that it gives the wrong signal altogether at a time when we are perfectly well aware that so much needs to be done to improve the heat efficiency of the homes of Britain.
What we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out is to have clearly-defined standards for home heating. In fact these are well understood by now. It is known what the level of heating ought to be in different rooms according to their usage. I should have thought it highly desirable for these to be given an official status and the action taken to improve homes—whether in the private or the public sector; whether in low income groups or other income groups—related to those objectives. Then we should all know where we stood. As it is, there are no clear standards laid down and this is a vague and grey area.
I should like to refer specifically to the problem of those on low incomes and the elderly. We need to consider the size of this problem. The Department of the Environment estimated in 1984 that £4 billion needed to be spent to upgrade council housing stock in
660
Great Britain to acceptable thermal levels. A large proportion of those homes of course would be inhabited by people on low incomes.
The present rate of annual expenditure for improving the thermal efficiency of these homes is of the order of something like £50 million. If you divide 50 into 4 billion you come to the answer that at the present rate of progress it will take us something like 80 years to achieve the improvements that the Department of the Environment estimated to be necessary. That of course leaves out of account entirely the private sector where there are also many deficiencies.
What is being done by way of public expenditure in improving the thermal efficiency of homes is rightly concentrated on low-income households. It is estimated that there are some 6 million or so of these; that is, householders which are on supplementary benefit. It includes 2 million householders of pensionable age.
The main body conducting insulation in this category of householders is the Neighbourhood Energy Action organisation, with which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and I are closely involved. This was started in 1981. It has already insulated 300,000 homes in the category of those on low incomes and has increased its rate of insulation to 200,000 per annum. It is doing valuable work and has been supported by a number of government departments. It employs 6,000 people under the community programme, and by April 1988, if present plans mature, this will rise to 8,000.
However, despite this progress, as the figures show, there is much more to be done. It is not just a question of doubling up, or indeed trebling up, if we want to deal with this problem in a measurable amount of time. Therefore it is regrettable to have to say that even this programme, which is relatively limited in relation to the nature of the problem, is now being threatened.
Under the Social Security Act 1986 the DHSS proposes to abolish the single payment for the draught-proofing of homes of those on low incomes from March 1988. There has been a great deal of discussion about this to ensure that this help will be forthcoming in some other way, and indeed on a growing scale if the increased programme of the NEA is to survive. But regrettably so far no agreement has been reached.
Unless an agreement is reached by October or November of this year, this major programme will have to start running down because it cannot operate without the funds which have hitherto been available under the single-payment scheme. There is much encouragement for the programme from, for example, the Department of Energy, because it fits so well with what it is trying to do. Indeed, I was over at the department yesterday presenting certificates to some of those who install this draught-proofing.
It would be somewhat anomalous if a programme of this sort, so fully supported by one department of state, were abruptly brought to an end by another department of state. I trust that this will not happen and that the noble Baroness will have some words of reassurance to give us when she speaks. This is a most important issue.

661
I should like to conclude by suggesting that under the comprehensive strategy that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is proposing we should aim basically to do three things. As to new construction, I have made suggestions that under the new building regulations there should be clearly defined minimum standards laid down both for industrial and residential properties. Secondly, so far as existing buildings are concerned, we must put in hand a major programme to stimulate and encourage efficiency in insulation. There should be suitable incentives, and we should aim to try to get the problem resolved within a measurable time.
Finally, so far as the low income groups are concerned and especially the elderly, there is an urgent need for the replacement of the single-payment scheme so as to enable the present programme to go ahead, but that programme itself needs to be at least doubled again, and then again, in order to deal effectively with the problem.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may first join previous speakers in congratulating my noble friend and colleague Lord Stallard on introducing this debate and giving us the opportunity to speak on a subject which is very important and topical, bearing in mind the inclement weather that we had only some few days ago. I think that the debate has wider connotations than the title we are debating. We are in effect talking about the best use of energy resources in the country.
I would have developed the theme earlier at Question Time, but one has to be concise and short in the questions one puts to a Minister. However, I have figures which show that we, as a nation, are probably among the worst, if not the worst, wasters of energy in Europe. This is comparing ourselves with nations of a comparable size. In most aspects we come out badly in any league, as we are defined as an exorbitant waster of the energy that we produce. I understand that it is over 20 per cent. A lot of this is because on the domestic side the country is almost totally unequipped to deal with the situation. There is far too much energy wasted in the homes of this country.
It is also a fact that the Minister's information today is at odds with the information that has been given to me by professional people involved in the insulation industry. I tried to make the point—I do not think that the Minister accepted it—that under the changes that the Government have announced there would be fewer people applying for insulation benefits. The Minister went to great lengths to tell me that because they had made it 90 per cent. for an increasing number of people, that there would be more take-up. I have the figures here. They are taken from Building magazine early this month. The magazine says that the money available for loft insulation has been cut from £26 million in 1986–87 to £15 million for the year after. If it is being cut, or even if it remains the same, surely if one allows houses that come within the criteria to receive a 90 per cent. grant—I believe the previous grant was 60 per cent.—by any mathematics it is clear that the total can only be divided among fewer applicants. I quote from this article once again:
"Many contractors specialising in loft insulation could be forced out of business by government cuts to next year's Housing
662
Insulation Grant, according to the National Association of Loft Insulation Contractors. It claims the move will reduce workload by over 75%."
Later the article states that NALIC:
"said 90% of its members' work comes from grant-related jobs. Of this, only 12% is from households on supplementary benefits.
"A spokesman said: 'We will lose many expert smaller contractors who specialise in loft insulation. The government is hoping the withdrawal of the grant will make people turn to DIY.
'Firms will probably be very busy until February, when the grant rules change. But after that they will have to turn to local authority and contract work'."
We already know in the broadest sense that money to local authorities has been cut so there will be no expanding market there. The quote continues:
"The money available for loft insulation has been cut from £26m in 1986–1987 to £15m this year. The government's reasoning behind the cutback is that available funds should be targeted to areas of need."
I do not think anybody would quarrel with that—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said almost the same thing—so long as the cuts are restored to the other people from whom they have been removed. The quote continues:
"Nearly 90 per cent. of accessible roofs in England are now insulated, and we should now concentrate the scheme's assistance on those people who find it most difficult to afford the costs of loft insulation.".
That statement was attributed to the Minister for Housing, Mr. Patten. The quote continues:
"But according to Eurisol secretary general Ian Knight, 85 per cent. of the 20 million houses in the UK are not insulated to the current building regulation standards.
'More than two million houses still have no insulation in the lofts, 1·25 million have one inch or less and another 2·25 million have two inches or less. Current regulations call for a minimum of four inches of insulation—which is totally inadequate'.".
These are the figures and the opinions that the people involved in the industry are expressing. I fail to be convinced, having studied that document, that the information in the brief given to the Minister by her civil servants was correct. I believe that the builders are right and that there will be a reduction in the number of people applying for housing insulation grants. That is extremely sad, bearing in mind that we are already known as one of the biggest wasters of energy in Europe.
In another debate some time ago a noble Lord, I think on the Cross-Benches, quoted the frightening rapidity with which the world was using up non-renewable energy resources. The figures were quite alarming. It is unforgiveable that we are not safeguarding and using to their maximum efficiency the treasures that we still continue to take out of the ground in the form of coal and oil. I believe the statement that has been made will act detrimentally.
I should like to put a specific question to the Minister. When is the cut-off point when the grants will no longer be applicable? Was it dated from the Minister's statement or will it be from today? If it is from today, will the Minister give an undertaking that anybody who applied for insulation grants during the recent very severe cold weather will—as long as those applications are in the hands of the local authority, they will be allowed to process them—receive their grants. Otherwise it seems rather unfair. I know from my own experience that there was a rush for insulation grants because of the recent cold weather. They were realistic applications, not phoney ones made just

663
because people realised that a benefit was available. I do not know exactly what the average grant might be but, for an average semi-detached house, at the top of the scale, it would probably be about £80 at the most. Before I came to your Lordships' House I insulated my own house. The installation of a four-inch thick thermal cladding in the loft is of immense benefit not only to the occupants of the house but also to society as a whole in terms of energy conservation.
There are a number of other statistics that can be made available to prove the point that the Government are unfortunately going down the wrong road. There are statistics to show the improvement that could be expected in the health of elderly people and in the health of people in the more deprived areas where the housing is particularly bad. Health could be improved in the widest sense from the babies and children up to the elderly people who are so prone to hypothermia in the type of weather we experienced some weeks ago. However, I do not wish to quote any more statistics as I think we have had sufficient to indicate to the Minister that she should go back to the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to reconsider this as a matter of urgency because of the pittance that is represented by these cuts in the insulation grant. There is no doubt that there will be cuts in these programmes and people will not come forward without the incentive. We shall pay a much bigger price for it later and in the future the cost will be much higher than if the job were done today.
Having said that, once again I want to thank my noble friend and colleague Lord Stallard for giving us the opportunity to debate such an important and topical subject.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in an excellent and knowledgeable speech, has drawn your Lordships' attention to what I think is a very important problem of our age. I do not intend to follow the knowledgeable noble Lords who have spoken before me, but I intend to read their speeches afterwards because I have already learnt a great deal more about this subject than I shall be able to impart to your Lordships in my brief remarks.
This country is well behind most of Europe in home insulation. I spent Christmas and New Year in Poland and when I left Warsaw the temperature was 35 degrees below zero Centigrade. But at no time in the three weeks I spent visiting people in their homes—I stayed in Polish houses all the time, never in a hotel—was it cold indoors.
I noticed during the recent cold spell here in this country—getting slightly off the subject—that people in London simply did not know how to dress out of doors. For example, going out in that weather in a pair of jeans and a sweatshirt means that it takes you a long time to get warm again back indoors. And that could cause illness. However, that is a diversion. It was said in the press and elsewhere during the recent cold spell that we do not usually face such severe weather. That is not my experience. Almost every year we have a severe spell of weather. There are the odd years when we do not, but we have damp cold every winter in this country. It is then that one reads newspaper stories of
664
old ladies huddled in front of two-bar electric fires but only able to afford to put on one bar. That is a most pathetic situation to read about.
Unfortunately, we cannot go on pretending that this is unusual. As has already been pointed out, damp houses, inadequate insulation and poor heating are still widespread. However, I would divert from the general line of your Lordships' arguments and say that the reason is not only poverty. That is the cause to a large extent but partly it stems from our nation's past. I remember from my childhood that to be comfortable, even indoors, was considered to be soft and degrading in some sense.
There are people with plenty of money who shiver in their houses every winter. We have all met them, and I daresay some of them may sit in your Lordships' House. I have spent many uncomfortable and chilly hours in the houses of friends. The worst aspect of it as has been pointed out by other noble Lords, is that they are probably paying more for the wretched and inadequate heating they have than is paid by people who live in warm houses. Your Lordships will have experienced the type of dwelling I mean—a convector heater here, a miserable little one-bar electric fire somewhere else and night storage heaters turned low because the owner of the house does not think it cold enough to turn them up.
When these people grow old, they probably still have plenty of money. But they may become even colder. I do not know what we can do about them except try to persuade them that living in damp, cold houses is bad for their health. The people I am talking about could spend their own money if they thought it proper. One might also explain to them that adequate heating normally costs less than poor heating and that one-bar electric fires, convectors and similar things consume a huge amount of electricity, as do electric immersion water heaters. The sort of people I am talking about nearly always seem to have their water tanks heated by electrical immersion heaters; I do not know why.
Also, the National Health Service might have more beds to spare and doctors might have more time if we could persuade these more prosperous people to change their ways and to do something about making their houses warmer. It is not good for anyone of any age to live in a cold, damp house. It does not make them hardier, stronger or fitter. They finish up with bad chests and water on the knee, and they cost the health service a fortune.
I turn briefly to methods of heating and the economics of those methods. My knowledge is not nearly as comprehensive as that of other noble Lords who have spoken. At one time I owned a medium-sized Scottish farmhouse, which was very difficult to heat and very cold in the winter. After two or three years of these conditions, I had had enough and I got in touch with an oil company who installed a boiler and several radiators. Under the contract I was to pay off the installation costs over 10 years. Incidentally, there was a large damp patch at one gable end of the house and I had spent a fortune on builders' repairs without any success at all.
The following winter, with the central heating installed, the house was warm and the damp patch

665
disappeared. However, the best news was the heating bill. Including the capital repayments—I stress that point—my total bill for heating was actually less than it had been the previous year in a cold house. That is a good story. It could not be exactly repeated now perhaps because of the hike in the price of oil. Nonetheless, I think it is near enough repeatable. If we can pay less to heat people better we must be winning the battle. That is the way to approach the matter.
I agree with practically everything that has been said this afternoon. I regret, however, that I have to disagree to some extent with my noble friend Lord Ferrier on the subject of night storage heaters. I had these heaters in a home which I owned. One of the troubles was that when it got cold you turned them on. Twenty-four hours later, when the next warm spell of weather started they were operating at full blast so that everybody sweltered while they were subsiding again. Also, as they came on at night, it tended to be rather cool in the evening when people wanted to sit down and keep warm. They were actually best while getting out of bed in the morning and shaving, and that sort of thing. Personally, I do not think they are a very good contribution to the problem nowadays. I found them expensive and inefficient. Quite frankly, I hate them. However, I will not go any further into that. That is really all I have to say on this subject.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, regarding his criticism of night storage heaters, I referred to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned in an earlier speech—that the thermostatic and clock-timing controls today are infinitely better than they were 10 years ago, and more automatic.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what my noble friend has to say.
4.17 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I am glad that this Motion is being debated. With the inevitable decline in North Sea oil and gas resources, energy conservation is of vital importance to this nation and I am sure that in the long term energy costs will rise.
I want to consider this Motion under three separate headings: first, more effective energy use in new houses; secondly, improvement to the installation of houses by those who can afford it; and, finally, what can be done to help those who cannot afford the cost of improvement themselves or their heating costs.
I congratulate the Government on their new approach to energy efficiency. It took a long time to get any improvements to the building regulations, which specify minimum insulation requirements for new houses. We still await minimum requirements for floor insulation. Roughly 15 per cent. of the heat in a house goes out through the floor and in a fairly well insulated house it rises to 20 per cent. Therefore floor insulation is very important indeed.
We are still behind other European countries in our standards. I vividly remember that in the past my pleas for better standards were met by the assertion that market forces would take care of the situation. I then pointed out that with an uninformed public it would take years before they knew enough of the merits of
666
high insulation for it to affect the building industry and for them to want to pay a small extra sum for better insulated houses. It is now just beginning to become a factor in house purchasing and in the meantime, we have built inadequately insulated houses for a future generation.
"Degree days" can give a useful guide. Our winters are less harsh than those of Europe, but they last longer. "Degree Days" tots up the days, multiplied by the temperature difference between the outside and the inside comfort temperature. On this basis, Edinburgh is almost the equivalent of Bergen, Glasgow is worse than Zurich and London is similar to New York. I know that this concept can be attacked in minor ways, but overall the message remains true.
In my second category are those who could afford to improve the insulation of their houses if they were convinced that it was worth while. It is never quite as easy to achieve effective energy conservation by modifying old houses. It is easier in a new house but much can still be done—draught-proofing, loft and cavity wall insulation and even under-floor insulation.
Double glazing, if considered only on its merits for heat insulation, is rather expensive, but of course it has other advantages. It draught-proofs windows, prevents a cold down-draught from windows and, to some extent, cuts down noise. The sophisticated opening type of double glazing is very expensive, but DIY glazing of windows which need not be opened is fairly cheap and effective. I have adopted this solution myself. At the end of my speech I shall return to the merits of insulating all our existing housing stock.
I should now like to consider the real hardship of those who cannot afford their heating bills and whose houses are badly insulated. I realise that, unfortunately, this must mean some central or local government expenditure. The Government have encouraged voluntary groups to put in the insulation. But this is only a drop in the ocean, although I applaud the scheme and those who work for it. In my view there should be an audit for those who are in real need, with more inspectors to see where help should be given as a priority. Just paying out money to those in need is inefficient and not a long-term solution. With old people, particularly those living alone, free provision or loan of low voltage blankets or even heated spacesuits should be considered as a temporary measure. Either of these uses very little electricity and it would be possible to keep warm in a room down to, say, 50 degrees Fahrenheit, below which lung infection in older people may be a consideration.
I end this speech by giving some figures which emphasise the importance of what I have been saying. But much more important in my view is what the Government should do. Over 20 per cent. of our energy consumption in this country is used for domestic heating in some 20 million homes. This represents a cost of some £7 billion a year. Of these 20 million houses, 15½ million have poorly insulated roofs or no insulation at all; 17½ million have no insulation in their walls and almost none has floor insulation. This is a very sorry picture.
By spending under £900 million on cavity wall insulation, the energy saving should theoretically offset this expenditure in about seven years. In addition,

667
there is the £400 million spent each year in direct payments for supplementary heating benefit. Furthermore, the need to construct one new power station costing £1½ billion might be avoided by a large insulation programme over the next few years.
I always try to be honest and the overall picture may not be quite as rosy as I have stated. I agree that some of the increased insulation benefit will be accepted, not by reducing the consumption of fuel, but by getting a more equable inside climate. Nevertheless, the economic viability of what I have tried to describe still remains. I very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us that they are looking very seriously at the proposal to try to insulate our existing housing stock, certainly before the end of the century.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I was very pleased to listen to my noble friend Lord Stallard making such a comprehensive introduction to his debate which concerns an all-important subject. I was also extremely interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, covering so many points: first, the new building regulations which seem of absolutely fundamental importance; secondly, the heating deficiencies of our existing housing stock; and, thirdly, the importance of the work being done by the voluntary organisations working in the field of home insulation. I very much hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points which he made at the end of his speech.
If I dare enter into the discussion about night storage heaters, let me from personal experience agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who said that the present night storage heaters spread the heat throughout the day and do not concentrate it in the middle of the night when, as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, so rightly said it is not necessary.
We have also spoken today—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, who particularly mentioned this—about the unaccountable fact that being cold is a more acceptable state in Britain than in other countries. It may be some national characteristic that even well-to-do people in Britain think, as a matter of discipline, that they should put up with being cold. We have also referred to the tragic phenomenon of hypothermia which is considered a British disease. To prove this there is unequivocal evidence that there is a higher seasonal mortality in Britain than in other countries, even if those other countries have more severe winters. One is left facing the question of why we allow this to go on? Why do we accept that there should be ill-health, in some cases death and in many cases extreme discomfort from the cold in our houses, which can be avoided?
Again, one must remember the cruel paradox, that it is the very people who can least afford to pay their fuel bills who need the most fuel. Elderly people, families with small children and the unemployed spend a great deal longer in their houses than those who go off to an office and use the heat provided by their employers. Therefore, as I say, in this paradoxical way it is the poorest people who need the most heat and who are the least able to pay for it.
668
The AMA has brought out some disquieting statistics, just one or two of which I should like to quote to your Lordships. It has pointed out that the major problems resulting from the continuing underinvestment in better heating and insulation are that there are still 2 million homes which are prone to dampness and condensation, that pressure upon social work case loads has increased because of fuel debts, that there were as many as 130,000 fuel disconnections in 1985–86 and that rent arrears are aggravated on the estates that are hardest to heat.
It also points out that the level of government-led investment in energy conservation has declined dramatically since 1979. In 1979, the dwellings completed under local authority energy conservation schemes were 632,000, and in 1985 the number was down to 80,000, which is a very great decrease. The AMA also made the point that, although the Government have failed to develop a comprehensive strategy nationally, there are a number of authorities that try to do this locally; and my noble friend Lord Stallard quoted what has been done in Newcastle, Birmingham and Hackney. These local programmes and the local work which is going on seem to be of great importance and they could well be followed through on a national level.
I should like to mention one area in the United Kingdom which suffers particularly from fuel poverty. That area is Northern Ireland. I was reminded of this fact a few weeks ago when I visited Belfast to speak at a conference about hypothermia and fuel poverty organised by Age Concern. Northern Ireland provides such an extreme example of heating problems for a combination of reasons. They include greater cold weather, ill health, cold homes and low incomes, which are more significant in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, a third of the population in Northern Ireland relies upon social security benefits. Average wages are almost 20 per cent. below those in Britain. Heating a home adequately is, according to a Northern Ireland economic council, over 40 per cent. more expensive that in it is in Britain because of higher electricity and gas costs.
For many years fuel poverty was monitored and measured through the number of disconnections made by electricity and gas suppliers. However, such indicators do not provide a complete reflection of fuel poverty. The reason is that in Northern Ireland there are wider powers under the Act concerned with repayment of debts to deduct fuel arrears directly from people's wages and benefits. This ensures that fuel bills are met, no matter what the cost in personal hardship. Furthermore, people who cannot afford to buy a bag of coal, which is the most common domestic fuel in Northern Ireland, effectively disconnect themselves. Therefore, a better indicator of fuel poverty is the increasing evidence of ill health and deaths among people who are unable to keep warm.
People working in the field of energy conservation and fuel poverty in the Province have made many recommendations. They advise that a fuel benefit of £5 a week for those on child benefit, retirement pensions, disability allowance and invalidity benefit should be made. They advise that there should be an end to disconnection of electricity supply on the

669
present basis and that there should be intensive research into the extent of fuel poverty and cold-related ill health in the Province, which up to now has not taken place.
As other speakers have noted, one wonders what can best be done about the situation. The AMA has made some sensible and fundamental suggestions. It first talks about the building regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already covered. It talks about the fact that the Government have failed to agree a consistent and effective standard of warmth for Britain's homes. The only agreed level is the minus 1.5 degrees centigrade temperature for severe weather payments which is used rather than the original target temperature for accommodation for the elderly of 21 degrees centigrade, which seemed to be a better way of measuring need.
The AMA also talks about the lack of investment and the fact that the Government have consistently failed to enable local authorities to invest in a systematic way in better heating and insulation. The Department of the Environment estimated in 1985 that £4 billion was needed to be spent on thermally uprating the council housing stock in the United Kingdom. There is little sign that such investment will be forthcoming in the current circumstances.
Lastly, let me add a word to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about Neighbourhood Energy Action, in which I am involved. I should like to mention how that important voluntary organisation started. It began in the 1970s when fuel prices were going up. A group of Durham students realised that old people were suffering very much and were unable to pay their fuel bills. They, as students, were hardly able to help with fuel bills. However, they realised that they could go round to help old people make their houses warmer. That is how the organisation started. The students themselves, in an independent way, went round trying to help old age pensioners to keep warm in their houses.
I stress the great concern that the NEA has and the very great risk to its important work, which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and which is under threat. It has built this work up over the years and worked out a very sensible formula. Not only the NEA but many others today will hang on the words of the Minister when she tells us, as I hope she will, how single payments will be replaced. Without single payments, the work of home insulation carried on in this way by voluntary organisations cannot go on.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, reminded the House that on 5th November my noble friend Lord Ezra asked an Unstarred Question on this subject. In putting the Question he covered that area comprehensively and he received a comprehensive reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. Other noble Lords took part. However, since then we have had the experience of severe winter weather, there has been a change in the grants for loft insulation and there has been a change in the formula for triggering severe weather payments and much controversy about those payments.
As my noble friend Lord Ezra has said, it is therefore appropriate that we should return to this subject
670
today. I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for giving us the opportunity to do so and for making many important points in relation to this subject.
The first thing which strikes me about this problem is the comparison between the United Kingdom and other countries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, my noble friend Lord Ilanworth, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred. The increase in mortality in the winter months in the United Kingdom is 24 per cent. The increase in Canada and Sweden, both of which have more severe winters than we do, is 6 per cent. There is much argument as to why that is so. It is suggested by some that there are special circumstances in Britain which bring that about; it is argued by others that it is simply because we do not organise ourselves in order to deal with the cold weather when it comes.
There may be disagreement on that point. However, I am sure there is considerable agreement on the things we can and must do to improve the situation. First of all, we must have a more efficient use of energy. That means that we must improve existing homes and that in turn means loft insulation and draught-proofing. With regard to loft insulation, I believe that 87 per cent. of our homes now have some measure of loft insulation. However, that insulation is only considered to be adequate in about 37 per cent. of the cases. Therefore, if one takes those figures one can work out that in at least half the houses with insulation there is a great deal requiring to be done. This was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Dean, and by my noble friend Lord Ezra.
As we have heard, the insulation grants have been extended so far as the 90 per cent. rate is concerned to all people on supplementary benefit and housing benefit. However, the 66 per cent. grant has been withdrawn. That means that pensioners, for example, who are only slightly above the benefit level and who could have qualified before for these grants, have now lost their entitlement entirely.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the scheme called Budget Warmth. I wonder whether she can give us more information about that scheme. It has been tried out as a pilot scheme in certain parts of the country. Under the scheme, the Electricity Council will insulate a nominated room in the house of an elderly person or elderly people. They will install heating and they will control that heating by remote control at the appropriate temperature. The cost of it is known in advance to the elderly person concerned, which is helpful, and he or she cannot turn down the heating, so there is no fear of being left in the cold. Can the noble Baroness say how that scheme is operating and whether there is any possibility of its extension?
After loft insulation we come to draught-proofing. What we are most concerned about in that connection is the point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred and which has been mentioned by other speakers; namely, what is going to happen after 1988 when the social fund is installed? I think it is generally agreed that loans from the social fund would not be a satisfactory way of providing grants for the materials necessary for draught-proofing. I think it is agreed also that some form of grant is essential but as yet we do

671
not know what that form is going to be. Again, it would be welcome if the noble Baroness could provide us with some guidance on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the fact that 61 per cent. of houses in this country lack draught-proofing. We are aware of the work done by Neighbourhood Energy Agency, with which my noble friend Lord Ezra and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, are associated. My noble friend Lord Ezra said, when putting his Question on 5th November, that even if that organisation doubled its activities it would not be able to deal with the task in less than 30 years. There is therefore an urgency for the kind of campaign which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked for; the kind of campaign which was instituted when, a few years ago, there was the conversion to North Sea gas.
My noble friend Lord Ezra referred to the need to build better homes and spoke about the consultative document. I am quite sure the Government will wish to consider carefully what he said about that. It is encouraging that advice on saving fuel is available from the Solid Fuel Advisory Service, the electricity and gas industries and the Energy Efficiency Office. All that is helpful. There are 6 million homes occupied by people on supplementary benefit. That includes 2 million pensioners. That, clearly, must be the principal area for improvement.
Those are, of course, also the households where paying for fuel is a serious problem. I think it is important that the price of fuel should not be kept unnecessarily high as a result of government policy and dictation. It is essential, too, to have adequate benefits for those who simply cannot meet their fuel bills. It is perhaps not inappropriate to recall that there have been some cuts in fuel benefits in recent years. In 1983 the application of the available scale margin to heating additions for the first time meant that those on long term supplementary benefit lost £1 per week from the heating addition. In 1985 central heating additions were ended for all new claimants.
We know, of course, that there is an allowance for heating in the basic supplementary benefit level. We know that there are additional payments to people with particular heating problems. That is the point: they are for people with particular heating problems. As my noble friend Lord Hanworth pointed out, they total some £400 million a year. Those additional payments are all to be replaced by general premiums to certain groups of people; not people defined by heat problem but defined by other circumstances. We understand that the £400 million is to go into that general pool. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether it would be possible to identify in future years, when the scheme is operating, the amount which is being allocated for heating. I should also like to know whether the noble Baroness is satisfied that the people who now receive these heating additions because of particular heating problems will not lose out under the new arrangements.
Is there a case for a fuel premium, perhaps payable in winter only? That brings me to the severe weather payments. We welcome the fact that the threshold has been raised but it would seem that a retrospective benefit—a benefit which depends on past temperatures
672
—must be unsatisfactory. How is a prospective claimant to know whether the temperature is going to average less than the limit for a period of seven days from Monday to Sunday? If the Government are determined to keep that retrospective system of triggering, will they consider having a rolling seven-day period so that the first seven days which averaged less than the limit would trigger the benefit?
Is seven days perhaps too long? Is not that something we have learnt from the recent cold spell? Perhaps four days is a more suitable period if we are to have this particular type of triggering system. Is £5 per week enough? I understand that £5 would heat one room for two days. Of course, it is important that all rooms should be kept warm if possible, and not just one room. Finally on these payments, is it right to maintain the restriction for those who have £500 or more of savings? That amount is just about the cost, for many people, of a funeral.
Finally, three departments are involved on this general attack on fuel poverty. They are the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security. How is the campaign against fuel poverty to be co-ordinated, and not merely co-ordinated but driven forward? Should not one department, one Minister, take the lead? We know what needs to be done—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that we have the resources to do it—but whether it is done will depend upon the drive, the determination and the leadership of those in authority.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Stallard for giving the House this opportunity to debate this subject again today. I think it is necessary for it to be debated again because, as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said, we try to pretend that winter does not happen in this country, but every year we are surprised by it and every year we suffer from it. The only answer is to keep pressing, particularly in regard to the needs of elderly people in cold weather, and to press the matter throughout the summer so that, it is to be hoped, by next winter we will see some improvement.
There has been no shortage of novel ideas this afternoon. I was particularly impressed with the suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for, I think, some kind of space suit for the elderly. That conjures up a lovely picture of elderly citizens sitting round the television watching "East Enders" through their visors and turning up the heat as necessary! It is certainly a novel idea that I have not heard before.
I am not quite sure about the solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for a room where the occupant could not turn down the heat. I think I might find that uncomfortable and I am not sure that everyone would want it. However, I take the point that we must make sure there is a minimum level of heating.
It is tempting to stray into the whole question of energy conservation but I shall leave that subject for

673
another day and keep to the matter now before us. No doubt we shall hear from the noble Baroness who is to reply about the heating allowances made by the DHSS and the fact that there is a notional heating element in all supplementary benefit payments. We recognise that, but the reality is that the sum allowed is affected by the needs of the recipient. The point has been made by my noble friends Lord Stallard and Lady Ewart-Biggs and a number of other speakers including the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that it is poor people who live in the worst housing. Therefore it is those with the lowest incomes who have to find the most money for heating.
It has been said before, and I do not think it can be said too often because we need to be reminded of it, that these people are liable to have old and less efficient heating appliances. The storage heaters that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, may be a solution but they have their shortcomings and there would have to be considerable improvements to them before I for one should want to recommend them as a method of heating for elderly people. In the meantime, very often they were saddled with inefficient old fires and terribly inefficient old gas heaters and they do not have the money to replace them. The money that is paid by the DHSS as a heating element is not sufficient for any capital expenditure on replacement of that kind. Their houses lack insulation, and doors and windows fit badly, so that even the pathetically small amount of heat that can be generated is quickly lost to them.
I shall not go into all the statistics about houses in need of renovation. They have already been given several times this afternoon. Perhaps I may just remind your Lordships that for those with adequate means, who are the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, referred, and who probably include all of us in this House, the saving on fuel consumption will put money in their pockets, but for those who are at or near subsistence level—and this afternoon we have discovered what a very high number that is, because not all poor people are in receipt of extra payments—it means a small improvement in their living standards. For the old, as we have seen many times this winter, it can be a life-saving exercise. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, intervened at the beginning of the debate to make that point.
The Government's cuts in grants for home insulation are therefore cruel and shortsighted because they hit those who are unable to do anything about better home heating. I know the answer that the noble Baroness will give, because she gave it earlier today, and I also know that those in the very greatest need will still be looked after, but there are a very large number of something like 11 million households which are on the borderline and they will be cut off from any help with home insulation.
The Secretary of State for Energy reiterated his commitment to energy conservation. How can that commitment be reconciled with the Government's cuts in insulation grants? It is very difficult to see the logic. I must also ask how this commitment can be reconciled with the intention to privatise energy supplies. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for bringing in that subject this afternoon but it is
674
something that has to be discussed. The incentive in privatisation (capitalism, if you like) in the energy industry is to sell more of the product for greater profit. Where does that leave conservation in energy supplies? I do not know whether the noble Baroness has an answer to that question.
I should like to come now to the question of the draft building regulations that are being discussed and to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quite rightly drew attention. I know it is not a very interesting subject to many of your Lordships and that it does not make the media headlines, but we must look at the standards that are being applied to new houses and new buildings generally if we are to make any inroads upon the state of our houses for the future. New building regulations are being discussed, and there is, I know, a consultative document. Many of the proposals in that document concern the upgrading of the thermal properties of new buildings, both residential and commercial, but there are flaws in the proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has pointed out.
While the Government are pushing for improved standards, the draft regulations have a certain flexibility whereby a trade-off between various elements is allowed. There is an overall thermal efficiency target for the building, but within that target it is possible to choose the areas of the building that will be best insulated. The big danger is that one can use the changeable elements within the building; for example, double glazing can be set off against wall insulation. However, double glazing is a changeable element which need not be replaced when breakages occur or when there are other changes to the building. If that happens, the building then falls below the original standard set by the Government and becomes inefficient in those terms, even if it is accepted that the present standard set by the Government is sufficient, which is something that is also being questioned.
I suggest that changeable items should not be part of the trade-off regulations. Trade-off is also to be permitted between floors and roofs as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned. There is very little argument that roof insulation is more efficient than floor insulation. Floor insulation is valuable but roof insulation has a much greater effect on the temperature of the building. It would not therefore be very efficient if the builder met his requirements by insulating floors, which is cheaper and easier to do, and leaving the roof uninsulated. That too is a possibility under the draft regulations. Obviously, the larger the building, the greater the scope for trade-offs.
Commercial buildings are included in the regulations although they are subject to a lower standard, but large buildings which are designed, say, as homes for the elderly also come into that category and are subject to this wide possibility of trade-off, which needs to be controlled. There should be no loophole left for that kind of building and I hope that when the Government eventually come to printing these regulations, they will decide that this provision must be changed.
There is also the question of industrial buildings which are to be deregulated. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said quite a lot about that and I support everything that he said, particularly in relation to speculative building. Very often by the time such

675
speculative buildings are sold, or indeed early in the life of buildings that have been sold for industrial purposes, they will come on the market and be put to a different use from that originally intended. We have to look at the Government's own wish to relax the planning controls regarding change of use on buildings. That is particularly relevant as regards the Government's proposed simplified planning zones. So far they have not been a problem because they have not yet come into existence, but they will do so in the course of this year. We could have a situation in the future in which buildings with heating standards that are totally inadequate, even by the standards which are proposed in the regulations, will not even meet the commercial standard, let alone the residential standard, which is a use to which they could be put.
To improve thermal insulation after a building has been completed is often difficult and is certainly much more expensive than providing adequate insulation when the building is being erected. We should expect good standards for all buildings whatever their alternative use is likely to be. I must ask the Government whether they have considered the effect on energy conservation of deregulating industrial buildings. Has any thought been given to that question, and has any possible calculation been done on what it might do to the energy conservation programme? Does the Department of Energy know what is proposed in the building regulations or, as so often happens in government departments, is this something which the Department of the Environment is doing off its own bat without any consultation with another department.
There are conflicts, contradictions and inefficiencies in the Government's whole approach to energy supply and conservation and, as always, the victims of muddled policies are those who are least able to fend for themselves. Today's debate has drawn atttention to some of the problems. We hope that the Government will give more coherent thought to the remedies than they appear to have done so far. Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for the opportunity to join the debate.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on these Benches, we, too, are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for tabling this Motion. The Government fully recognise the importance of the issues that it raises and we are grateful for the many ideas that have been advanced by noble Lords from all sides of the House in the course of today's debate.
The Motion is concerned with heating. But the important question is concerned with individuals and their ability to achieve an adequate standard of heating in their homes. Inevitably, in looking at individuals, our main concern must be with the elderly and other people in our society who are in need. Many noble Lords have underlined and emphasised that point.
The problems are complex. As has been said, a number of government departments are involved with them. The recent spell of severe weather has highlighted many of the issues. It is important to reassess them when we have the summer ahead of us
676
to do a number of the things that need to be done. The Government are continuing to develop a strategy in that area. I shall breifiy mention the various developments and improvements taking place in many of the areas mentioned by noble Lords.
Before turning to issues, I must emphasise the energy improvements to the housing stock that have taken place since the Government came to power in 1979. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the statistics are impressive. Some 6.3 million more homes have well insulated roofs; 2.2 million more have insulated hot water tanks; 1.8 million more have cavity wall insulation; 2.4 million more have double glazing; and 2.6 million more homes have central heating. This improvement has resulted from decisions made by landlords, whether from the private or public sectors, and individual owner-occupiers. It is important that they are aware of the opportunities and benefits. The Energy Efficiency Office which was set up by this Government provides advice and information on cost-effective energy efficiency measures which can be taken to improve the comfort levels of homes and reduce energy costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to a number of projects that arose during Energy Efficiency Year. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also referred to them. They both pointed out the important job creation aspects which can be a side effect of energy efficiency measures. I believe that the designation of 1986 as Energy Efficiency Year and the associated Monergy campaign represented the biggest ever campaign to provide energy efficiency advice and information as well as encouragement to domestic householders. The year was supported by the fuel industries, the energy efficiency industries, those in the field such as Neighbourhood Energy Action and the voluntary projects to which some noble Lords referred.
The Energy Efficiency Office's response material, including the free magazine Monergy News, gives full details of the assistance available for low income households. In addition, the office has arranged with Neighbourhood Energy Action for low income inquirers who use the Monergy Hotline, featured in the office's advertising, to be referred to it for details of voluntary insulation projects in their area. I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that that service continues into 1987. It did not come to an end at the conclusion of Energy Efficiency Year.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke of the need for an urgent new national campaign. I submit that we are enjoying a continuing campaign. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is preparing for the Select Committee on Energy a report on how Energy Efficiency Year has contributed to his long-term objective of helping the nation to eliminate the 20 per cent. of our national energy bill which we presently waste.
The subject of gas and electricity prices also arose early in the debate. They were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier. Since the last election, domestic gas and electricity prices have fallen in real terms, gas by 7 per cent. and electricity by 10 per cent. In real terms domestic gas now costs less than it did in 1970 and electricity less than it did in 1981. In cash terms, since the election

677
the price of gas has increased by about 3 per cent. Under the Labour Government it rose four times as fast. Similarly, the increase for electricity has been about 2 per cent. a year. Under Labour it rose 11 times as fast. Electricity tariffs were reduced from November 1986 to take account of lower inflation forecasts, higher sales forecasts, improved efficiency in the industry and the 1986 price agreement between the CEGB and British Coal. The result was a price reduction of about 4·7 per cent. for the average domestic consumer.
I hope that that will reassure my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I can also assure him that electricity tariffs were in no way adjusted to meet the costs which the miners' strike caused the electricity supply industry. The domestic gas price increase of May 1986 averaged only 1·7 per cent., well below the prevailing rate of general inflation. This took account of a £1 reduction in the quarterly standing charge. The Government's record on that score is not at all bad.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the effects of gas privatisation. There is no reason to expect higher prices now that British Gas is a private sector company. Indeed, for the first time the domestic consumer is protected by a clearly established maximum price.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I was not talking so much about the price as the conservation element and attempts to sell more of the product.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that correction. I wanted to make that point in case it was in people's minds that prices were going to be affected as a result. The conservation issue is also being taken seriously, and is a priority for consideration. Obviously we must keep an eye on things.
I shall also refer to the point about concessionary tariffs for low income consumers made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Successive governments have concluded that concessionary fuel tariffs for selected groups are not an effective way of helping the less well off with their fuel bills. Such tariffs would waste resources by providing help to the many who were not in real need. We believe that the best way to help poorer consumers is through heating additions to supplementary benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised the subject of housing and the amount of government spending. It is for local authorities to determine whether the heating systems and the insulation of their housing are adequate and within the financial resources available to them, and to balance the need for improvements against other competing priorities. Gross provision for capital expenditure by local authorities on housing in 1987–88 is £2,922 million, an increase of £390 million over the corresponding figure for 1986–87.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also commented on the level of resources available to local authorities. I hope that what I have said reassures him somewhat. I am not sure from where he obtains his figure of £50 million for the annual expenditure on energy efficiency measures in local authority housing. He may be thinking of the additional allocation of £50 million to
678
the department's Estate Action initiative. Some of the schemes promoted by Estate Action are designed to help energy efficiency, but local authorities will also be spending a great deal more within their own housing programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and other noble Lords, mentioned fuel poverty and help for heating costs through the supplementary benefit scheme. The Government provide considerable help with heating costs for people receiving supplementary benefit. It is worth reiterating some of these schemes.
The most important assistance is the regular weekly help to all claimants through the scale rates which are intended to be used for all day-to-day expenses including fuel. Scale rates have increased by more than 6 per cent. in real terms since November 1978. Claimants who need to spend extra on heating, for example because of age or ill-health, get extra weekly payments known as heating additions. Expenditure on the additions in 1984–85 was some £400 million. The Government have introduced automatic entitlement to a number of heating additions to target help on those most likely to be in need of extra help with housing costs. The lower rate heating addition, worth £2.20 a week, is now payable to householders aged 65 or over, and to sick and disabled householders on the long-term scale rate. The higher rate heating addition, worth £5.55 per week, is payable to severely disabled people and to householders aged 85 or more.
However, I recognise that there are poor families who are not on supplementary benefit and do not qualify for heating additions. This is a difficulty but the Government believe it is right to concentrate available resources on those most in need and that it is best achieved through the supplementary benefit scheme. People with incomes above supplementary benefit levels are by definition less in need of help with heating costs. We do not believe that it would be the best use of available resources to spread them more thinly by extending entitlement to those who are above supplementary benefit levels.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier raised what became almost a mini debate in itself on the question of night storage heaters. He has given us the benefit of his experience in the past and in the Far East. I believe that the current design of storage heaters is more compact than earlier versions. The point may soon be reached when, for technical reasons, the size cannot be reduced any further. However, the choice of which appliance to use by the individual or landlord, depending on circumstances, must remain with those individuals.
Some electricity boards have instituted schemes such as Budget Warmth by which they install electric storage heating in the living room of a dwelling and provide heating throughout the winter period for a fixed weekly payment across the year. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to this matter and asked for further information. The noble Lord may be interested to know that the pilot scheme which was introduced by several electricity boards has worked closely with Neighbourhood Energy Action and other charities concerned with energy efficiency advice to low income households, and has proved extremely useful. The Department of Energy is looking at the

679
result of the pilot scheme with a view to deciding whether wider application may be appropriate.
Many noble Lords voiced the opinion, quite rightly, that new homes and building regulations were an area where a great deal of effort must be made because the results should be worthwhile. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Hansorth, concentrated on this point. The building regulations have a contribution to make to any strategy for conservation of fuel and power. It is some years since the standards of insulation in the regulations were raised. However, we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, recently set out the proposals for change. The proposals are part of the second stage of the review of building regulations.
Noble Lords may know that the regulations were recast in simplified form in 1985. The main regulations are much shorter. The technical detail is largely contained in supporting documents. In the second stage of the review we are revising the technical content of the regulations and the supporting documents. The proposals are set out in a consultation document which was issued on 15th December, 1986. There is a copy of this consultation document in the Library for any noble Lord who may not have already seen it. The consultation is still in progress and I shall ensure that account is taken of the comments made by noble Lords, and in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about a mimimum standard for industrial and storage building.
The consultation paper includes proposals for raising insulation standards. For any noble Lord who is technically minded I can say that that means that the maximum "u" values are to be lowered. I am told that the value is an assessment of thermal transfer through a material. The lower the "u" value the greater the insulation. The proposals in the paper is that for dwellings the "u" value for walls should be lowered from 0.6 to 0.45, and for roofs from 0.35 to 0.25. A new standard for ground or exposed floors would be introduced. That is 0.45. But the consultation paper envisages greater flexibility. The intention is that designers and builders should have more choice in the way they meet the requirements so long as the overall standard is achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that it might be possible to take this flexibility to the extreme of actually omitting roof insulation altogether. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was suggesting the same possibility for double glazing. I can assure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that it would be a very unusual house indeed which could achieve the standards suggested in the new regulations without having roof insulation and double glazing.
Those regulations apply to both the public and the private sector. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the point about home insulation grants and home improvement grants in particular in the private sector houses. Houses and flats improved or provided with the aid of home improvement grant must have adequate heating facilities under the so-called "Ten Point Standard". This will continue to be a requirement of any simplified target standards as proposed in last year's Green Paper. We have also encouraged local authorities to be helpful to the
680
elderly by making home improvement grants available for better heating facilities and for the provision of central heating in purpose-built old people's dwellings. Improvement grants can also be made available for other types of insulation work such as draught-proofing and wall insulation if that work forms part of a comprehensive scheme of improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that we were withdrawing an incentive for encouraging more insulation at the wrong moment by introducing the new scheme which was announced by my honourable friend in December last year. However, loft insulation is cheap and very cost effective. That is why the Government have supported it by the grant system. People have had eight years to take advantage of the scheme. Our extensive publicity should have, and I believe has, brought to the attention of all householders with adequate means the cost effectiveness of installing or improving their loft insulation. They have their money back very quickly. They receive a pay back in, I believe, two to three years. The proposed new scheme will assist those who do not have the means by increasing the total amount of the grant available to 90 per cent. It must therefore be sensible to concentrate help on the people who most need it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as the Minister is dealing with the new scheme, may I recall that I raised two very important points which it would appear that the Minister does not desire to touch upon. One was that people involved in the building industry say that the new scheme will result in a substantial shortfall in their workload compared with last year. I also asked specifically about people who had already made an application under the old scheme during the recent cold spell. Will they qualify under the old scheme for the grant that, at the time, they were led to believe would be available to them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was coming to that point, but I am happy to deal with it now as the old scheme is still in operation. The announcement which was made in December said that the change would take place "next year", meaning this year. My right honourable friend will lay a scheme before Parliament under the negative order procedure. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord that there might be a rush of applications for the existing grant was quite timely. There is the interim period during which they are able to submit their applications under the old scheme, but, at the moment, I am unable to tell him the cut-off date.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, felt unable to accept the figures which I quoted during Question Time concerning the effectiveness of the existing programme on roof insulation. I believe that nearly 90 per cent. of accessible roofs in England are now insulated. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, has given other figures, and other noble Lords have referred to conflicting figures. Of course, I shall look into those figures to be certain that we are all speaking of the same thing.
Many useful and helpful suggestions have been made and I fear I am being overtaken by time.

681
Nevertheless, as a number of noble Lords raised the matter, I shall refer to the single payments for draught-proofing which are made by the DHSS to recipients of supplementary benefit and which are due for abolition under the social security review in April 1988. I reassure noble Lords by saying that the DHSS has made a public commitment that alternative arrangements will be made and these are currently under consideration with the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment. Therefore, the matter is not lost; it will be dealt with.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Baroness has given us some reassurance on this very important point, but will she give any indication of when the changed arrangements will be announced? As I mentioned, in the case of Neighbourhood Energy Action, unless we know by October or November, we shall, in all prudence, have to start running down the programme, and that would be very serious.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot give a date for any announcement on the subject. I can only say that consideration has been given to the matter since the Statement was made last year. I believe that we are close to the time when a decision might be made regarding the alternative arrangements.
The Government welcome the effect which the voluntary sector is having in this area, particularly the work of the Neighbourhood Energy Action scheme to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have drawn our attention.
Regarding exceptionally cold weather payments, I stress that those payments form only a very small part of the total help with heating costs which is given through the supplementary benefit scheme. In 1984–85, expenditure on heating additions was some £400 million but the amount spent on exceptionally severe weather payments was just £1.7 million.
The new system of exceptionally cold weather payments which came into operation on 11th December, 1986, concentrates help on those most at risk from the cold. Those eligible, subject to the normal £500 rule on savings, are supplementary benefit households containing someone who is aged 65 or over, under two, or chronically sick and disabled. Payments can be made in any local office area where the average temperature, recorded at a designated weather station on a fixed seven-day period, falls to freezing point or less.
The Government believe that the new scheme is easier to understand, that it is simple to operate and that it more fairly directs help to those most in need. As all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have said that it is important to direct funds to those most in need, I trust that the scheme is welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that we have the coldest houses in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also made an international comparison, as did the noble Lord, Lord Banks. My noble friend Lord Belhaven gave some of the answers, one of which was to dress more warmly and, in an intervention, it was suggested that we should eat proper food. There is evidence that the seasonal excess mortality is greater in England than in some other countries which have
682
severer climates. The reasons for this are not clear. Happily, the position has improved in recent years, but central heating does not seem to be the crucial factor. This is a complex matter and I assure noble Lords that it is very much under consideration.
I realise that I have not answered all the questions raised by noble Lords and I shall consider the matter further after reading Hansard. However, the strategy which we are developing means that the energy efficiency of the housing stock is improving steadily. In the majority of homes, the decision to make further improvement lies with individual owner occupiers. The Government's main responsibility here is to make sure that they have advice on the cost effectiveness of measures and this is provided by the Energy Efficiency Office. But we also need to be concerned about those, in all tenures, who are unable, for whatever reason, to make improvements themselves. In the public sector, the main responsibility lies with local authority or housing association landlords. In the private sector, the responsibilities and opportunities for providing help where this is needed is more difficult. However, I hope that I have convinced the noble Lords of the Government's concern.
This has been a most useful and informative debate. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have participated in making this such an interesting and constructive debate. There is urgent need to find solutions to some very serious problems that could affect millions of our people, their well-being and their quality of life.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for her reply, particularly those parts with which I could agree—and there were some. I was slightly perturbed about her advice to people who could not keep warm or whose homes were too cold, which was simply to wear more clothes and eat more food. It reminds me of the fellow who was told to take longer steps to save shoe leather; I do not think the advice was exactly appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Parking Schemes for the Handicapped
5.29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the case for further improvement in the national schemes for the parking of vehicles used by handicapped people, in the interest of both the general public and severely disabled people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard this as a subject of concern not only to those disabled people who have serious mobility problems but also to the general public and in particular to motorists and the inhabitants of towns and cities. My theme is that so far as possible parking privileges for appropriate people with physical handicaps should be uniform throughout the country; also that the system should be sensible, fair, not too difficult to administer and, above all, not open to abuse.
If the badges can be used casually and fraudulently by able-bodied people, the system will fall into disrepute and lose the confidence of the public. Furthermore, if eligibility is extended to people who can clearly walk well enough, again the scheme will be discredited because the consequent congestion will justifiably annoy and disrupt the lives of those who live and work in urban areas.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for returning to this subject after four years. I initiated the last debate on 15th February 1983, when we were able to consider the 1982 regulations on orange badges which were then about to enter into force. My connection goes back much further. In the other place in 1969 I was a sponsor of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill which became the 1970 Act. Within a few weeks of enactment there was a change of government and I was a Minister. As Secretary of State for Scotland I was involved in putting into effect the parking provisions in that Act, among others.
In 1981 I was also the chairman for Scotland of the International Year of Disabled People. During that year there were opportunities to ventilate a number of points concerning the parking schemes. The most important of those points were included in the 1982 regulations. During the international year quite a lot of consideration was also given to parking at airports. There was a one-day conference arranged by the British Airports Authority at Gatwick which I attended. I must record that since that time there have been great improvements in parking facilities for disabled people at airports.
Coming nearer to the present time, the Government took a major initiative last August, which I wholeheartedly applaud in issuing a discussion document with some suggestions of their own on virtually all the remaining controversial points concerning disabled parking. I understand that the Government have already received many detailed replies from bodies concerned. The Government are still considering the subject so that everything that is said in this debate will be taken fully into account. Although the Government state in their document that they have tentatively made up their minds on some of the points, I trust that they are still open to argument on those points as well as others.
This debate is limited in time. I am lucky in having 15 minutes with which to start. For the benefit of all who follow, I can use some of that time to set out the present position and also some of the matters which need decision and action. I must stress that the subject which I am raising this afternoon is special parking privileges and not other matters affecting the mobility of disabled people; for example, problems at self-service petrol stations or breakdowns on motorways. They are important matters, but they are for discussions on another day. We shall need all the time today to deal adequately with the subject of parking schemes.
When the national schemes were started, based on the 1970 Act, directions and guidance were issued by central government, but the administration had to be carried out by local authorities. It was an ambitious scheme. Badges which were issued by one local
684
authority were valid in other local authority areas 200 or 300 miles away, except for central London. The central government consisted of two parts. Because of separate law and administration in Scotland the Scottish Office in the usual way briefed and guided local authorities in Scotland. England and Wales had another separate scheme. Northern Ireland introduced its scheme eight years later, because its disabled persons legislation was in 1978 and its first regulations were in 1979.
The separate systems from the early 1970s have continued and there are resulting anomalies north and south of the Border which are confusing for drivers. However, considering that this system was introduced in the early 1970s as a completely new concept for this country and was established quickly, it must be held to have been a success. It was certainly a great help to those handicapped people who have difficulty in walking.
Unfortunately, in those early days it was too easy to cheat or to misuse the badges. Except in Scotland the name did not have to appear on the badge. Many local authorities did not put names on the badges when the schemes first started. The badges were issued generously by local authorities; some were issued without very much checking. There was a rough rule of 50 per cent. disability, which was not always based on mobility and therefore the ability to walk. Above all, the worst error was that the badges were not removable. They remained on the windscreen because they were sticky and were intended to be stuck on to the windscreen. That meant when people other than the disabled person were using the car the badge was still on the windscreen. These points have been corrected in the 1982 regulations which we discussed in the debate in February 1983.
The new square badge which replaced the circular badge has to have a name on it. The badge lasts for three years. Any other badges stuck on the rear of a vehicle now carry no parking privileges whatever. The local authorities should be issuing transparent containers at the same time as the badges, so that the badges are easily removable. I believe that most of them have done this. The container is stuck to the windscreen. All this has been excellent progress.
However, we still need to concentrate on the two vital requirements in order to make the system work well and to eliminate abuse. First, the name must be clear and indelible on the badge; secondly, the badge must be removable. The badge should travel with the disabled person from car to car, if necessary, or to a taxi. It should be removed when the disabled person is not the driver or a passenger. Police and traffic wardens must be free to challenge the use of the badge, and should be encouraged to do so, when they suspect that a person is using a parking privilege with a badge and is not entitled so to do.
An example of blatant abuse was to be seen in that brilliantly scripted television series "Minder". Noble Lords who like me, may have become addicts of that series will remember that among the incidental small gems of the sayings and doings of Arthur (played by George Cole) was the slapping of an orange badge on to the windscreen of his Roller to assist its parking in one of his nefarious ploys. I am glad to say it should be much more difficult to get away with that now that the

685
name is required on every badge, and that it can and should be challenged. Giving a false name should be a serious offence. I hope that the Minister when he replies can tell noble Lords that the police and traffic wardens are equipped and in a position to check speedily and start prosecution proceedings when necessary.
The discussion document issued in August by the Government raises further points of rationalising and improving the system. I shall comment only on a few main points. The document reports that the number of badges being used has increased by 17 per cent. since 1983. One suspects that that includes a considerable proportion of people who do not medically require the badges. The wording of the criteria for discretionary judgment is:
"a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking".
Except for the word "permanent" which I shall discuss in a moment, I agree that that should still be the formula.
Where a medical certificate is required I suggest that it should not be the person's general practitioner who has to be the sole judge. It would be better to have an independent medical test arranged by the issuing local authority. The following letter from a doctor appeared in The Times on 1st March last year:
"A 60-year-old lady came to see me this week. She and her husband have been patients of mine since 1963.
She has some difficulty in walking—she nowhere near fills the criteria, however, for an orange badge for disabled drivers, but she and her husband genuinely feel she does.
It would have been absolutely impossible to have refused this request which would have appeared to have been a total rejection of them, and therefore I agreed. Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence and many people are driving round with orange badges who are not substantially disabled".
That is the main part of the letter. I fully support and sympathise with what that GP wrote, and he posed the problem very clearly.
The test should be mobility. Disablement of other kinds should not be a handicap to normal parking. In my opinion—and this matter is raised in the document—blind people should not automatically qualify. They cannot drive and have to be accompanied by an able-bodied person, who in most circumstances can deliver them and then park. Of course extenuating additional problems should be considered for each individual.
At present the orange badge applies to a disabled person either as a driver or as a passenger. The Government have suggested that there might be the letter "D" or "P" on the badge. Another suggestion is that those aged 65 and over should have a badge of a different colour than orange. Another suggestion is that there should be a photograph on the badge to help identification; and there is also the suggestion that there should be the registration number of the vehicle.
I do not think that these embellishments should be necessary if the name of the person is clear on the badge. The registration number can help to identify a person at a local authority office, but the person can use different motor cars; the badge travels with him. Surely the name on the badge should be enough. If abuse continues and we have to resort to photographs, then I would understand. However, I believe that it is
686
important to avoid adding to the administrative burden of local authorities unless it is really necessary.
There is also the matter of the length of time. At present all the badges are issued for three years. I believe that it should be possible to issue them for shorter periods of six months, one year or two years, provided that the expiry date is clearly on the badge. It might also be possible to issue them for longer periods of, say, six years. That would reduce the amount of administration.
The progress of medical science means that some people's mobility is now much better than perhaps anyone expected it to be in the past. Therefore, I believe that there should be more flexibility in the timing.
I have been discussing eligibility for badges. I should now like to say a few words about the privileges which they confer in normal daytime restricted parking hours. Those privileges are different in different parts of the country. I draw attention to that in the hope that there will be some rationalisation when the Government consider the changes that they will make. Otherwise it is difficult for disabled drivers to know what the rules are in different parts of the country, and they would have to carry a small volume of regulations with them.
For example, in Scotland a disabled person with an orange badge can park on a single or double yellow line for an unlimited time; in England and Wales they can park for only two hours with a special disc clock which is issued only in England and Wales. In different parts of the country local authorities have different rules about parking in residents' parking bays. Central London of course is different and I agree that it is necessary in London to have a stricter régime. There are about 15 million people living in or within easy motoring reach of London, and in those 15 million the number of people with orange badges who would be entitled to park in central London in order to visit shops or other attractions could completely swamp the city.
However, again there are anomalies. Perhaps the most glaring one is that in Westminster a disabled person (who has to be 85 per cent. or more disabled) can with his white card park in residents' parking bays in the City of Westminster even though it is not his own residents' parking area. However, he is not allowed to park on even a single yellow line. In Edinburgh he can park all day on a double yellow line without any penalty, but if he goes into a residents' parking area he will be committing an offence. This is the sort of anomaly that makes life very difficult for the disabled driver. As a small contribution, I suggest that it should be possible to park on a single yellow line but only on a double yellow line in an emergency.
The problems of parking can cause so much frustration and animosity that it is well worth refining these arrangements for the disabled people who need them. If they are demonstrably necessary, fair and selective, the system will be accepted by the public without inconvenience, as a part of normal daily life. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject, which is of great importance to disabled people, and to congratulate him on his tenacity in pursuing this subject and the masterly overall picture that he has given us. Perhaps I may also say what a joy it is to have my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton back once more in the ranks of the mobile Bench.
This is a very well-timed debate, because not only will all orange badge holders have been reassessed under the new criteria, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said, it gives us an opportunity to look at proposed changes and other possibilities in the Department of Transport's discussion paper. From the discussion paper it seems that some local authorities are being freer than others in their interpretation of the discretionary criterion, and it is very important to remember that 73 per cent. of orange badges are awarded in this category. I can quite understand the growing demand for orange badges by the less severely disabled, because the increasing number of parking restrictions and the growing amount of badly designed pedestrianisation schemes mean that only the very sure and fleet of foot can hope to make the distance and carry out their business in the time allowed.
Inadequate parking provision for orange badge holders can also drive them to park illegally, but it appears that abuse is mainy by non-disabled people. Therefore, the question is: how do we resolve the apparent conflict of interest between 800,000 orange badge holders—and that is one car in 20 on the roads—and the authorities concerned with traffic flow, etc.?
I believe that there are two approaches, and the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled (of which I am a member) sums them up in its response to the discussion paper. It says:
"The question arises: Do we want to restrict the number of people with orange badges, end all traffic congestion by reducing the concessions available to them, and allow parking restrictions to limit the number who can conduct their business; or
"Do we want to reduce the number of people who need orange badges to conduct their business, ensure that the conditions are adequate to allow this, and make sure that the orange badges are only issued to those who need them?
"We argue for the latter, many of the proposals in the discussion document support the former".
I agree, and doubtless the Minister will say, "She would, wouldn't she?" I am delighted to see the Minister shaking his head. Normally the Department of Transport shows a very sound understanding of the problems of severely disabled people. Perhaps it is even more understanding than I thought from reading the discussion paper. Indeed, in paragraph 2 the discussion paper states:
"It has been a basis of the scheme from its inception that the issue of badges should be restricted to those most in need of the parking concessions conferred by it".
Then the paper seems slightly to have lost sight of its goal, and many of the possible solutions seem to be involved with methods of restricting parking.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will permit me, the statement that one in 20 cars has an orange badge always seems to ignore the
688
fact that in the last three years quite a few of those people will have died or ceased to be capable of driving a car at all. The figure is not very reliable without the subtractions.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his interruption, but that figure comes from the department's own document, which I believe says that there are 800,000 valid badges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I can confirm that the correct figure is 800,000 badges in circulation, one in 20.
Lord Paget of Northampton: How do we know the number of those 800,000 badges that are still operative? If the owner dies, how does one find out about it? If the person ceases to drive, how does one find out about it? Such people remain on the list.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that it would have been better if I had not interjected but had waited to reply at the end of the debate.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, obviously there needs to be stricter policing. Measures must be taken to tighten the criteria and facilitate stricter policing and enforcement, but certain concessions will have to be made and existing ones maintained.
I come to measures to be taken to make enforcement easier. I think that the whole question of offences and punishment will have to be tightened up. My noble friend Lord Ingleby will deal with this.
Another move to aid enforcement would be a two-part badge. I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the existing badge. One part could be on the windscreen—this would be more easily removable than the existing one—with the serial number and issuing authority, etc. The other would have those details plus the photograph and name and address of the holder, who would have to keep it on him and show it to the police or traffic warden when asked. That might be more acceptable than the department's suggestion of a photograph on the windscreen badge. I hope that the Minister will agree to that.
Secondly, I come to measures to reduce the proliferation of badges. I accept that the criteria will have to be tightened. I think that the most effective way would probably be by changing the wording of the fourth discretionary criterion from,
"inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking",
to,
"unable or virtually unable to walk".
That would be the same as the mobility allowance, but it would also cover those too old to receive mobility allowance. I think that if possible it would be a good idea also to send a reminder on expiring.
I accept that there should be no expansion of categories to, for example, the temporarily disabled, agoraphobics and people with severe upper limb disabilities—those were suggested. I should have thought that the issue of temporary badges was

689
difficult to administer and open to abuse unless strictly policed. The scheme is, after all, intended for those with a permanent disability. While I appreciate that those with severe upper limb disabilities have very real problems as, indeed, I am sure do agoraphobics, they are not suffering from locomotor problems caused by a physical disability. If we clamp down on the discretionary criterion we can hardly extend the scheme to embrace these new categories.
Let us now see whether those most in need of the scheme can take full advantage of it. The first problem is time. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said, the two-hour limit on parking on double yellow lines exists in England and Wales but not in Scotland. I feel that it should now be abolished in England and Wales as well. The discussion paper mentions the very alarming suggestion of limiting the parking time to less than one hour. This shows a total lack of understanding of how much longer a disabled person takes to get in and out of a car and to his destination to carry out whatever he has to do. Two hours in most cases is not even long enough to do the weekly shopping.
Another problem is access. It is very important, with pedestrianisation schemes mushrooming everywhere, that parking be provided within the mobility range of severely disabled people, or a "no go" area is created for the very people who would most benefit from shopping in a flat, kerbless environment and one in which the best shops are likely to be. In partially pedestrianised areas, orange badge owners should be allowed access to the streets at all times along with buses and taxis unless other parking can be provided within reach. If access cannot be provided, then pedestrianisation should not take place.
There remain the four enduring warts of the orange badge scheme, the City of London, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the part of Camden south of, and including, the Euston Road. If these boroughs could be charmed into acknowledging the national scheme, this would he very valuable to severely disabled people.
It is also essential that existing concessions be maintained. In the discussion paper the department proposes separate badges for drivers and passengers. This is something which the Joint Committee on Mobility rejects emphatically. There is very real worry that this is the first step to two tiers of concessions. This is not fanciful scaremongering, because paragraph 34(g) of the discussion paper lists different concessions for drivers and passengers as something suggested by some authorities.
The proposal for two different badges stems from a lack of understanding of the practical problems of severely disabled people. Some disabled children cannot be left alone. Many elderly disabled people cannot walk without the help of their drivers. Very severely disabled people who cannot push their own chairs cannot be left alone while the driver goes back, finds a parking place—may be a quarter of an hour away—and walks back. The proposal was a definite one, and is very disturbing. The only circumstances in which the JCMD would accept these two types of orange badge are if Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 were amended to
690
ensure that the same concessions were offered to all classes of orange badge holder everywhere.
It is very important that existing parking concessions be maintained and that orange badge holders continue to be permitted to park where loading and unloading is allowed, to park on double yellow lines and to park without time limits where time limits do not now exist. I do not pick these examples out of the air. All these are concessions that local authorities have suggested might be removed, along with the introduction of the less than one hour limit and the introduction of a two-hour limit in Scotland.
I accept that there is a need to tighten the criteria for eligibility and to facilitate stricter enforcement, and I believe that this must be done. I am, however, convinced that we need to maintain and add to the existing concessions with regard to time, access and space so that those for whom this excellent scheme was designed can lead their lives to the full.
5.56 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, of the nine speakers today, four are in wheelchairs. I am therefore one of the speakers who has no axe to grind. In saying that, I am quite sure that those noble Lords who are in wheelchairs are not speaking for themselves; they speak for all such people.
I admit that in listening to the speakers so far I have learnt a lot. I had no idea of the extent of orange badge holders. Therefore, what I say this evening is based on my personal observations.
Nearly three years ago I tabled a Starred Question on the misuse of the orange badge scheme. It was answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her usual helpful way. On 24th February 1984, I asked (at col. 967 of Hansard):
"how many prosecutions there have been for illegal use of the orange badge scheme for disabled persons from its inception on 1st December 1971 until the implementation of further regulations in 1975; and from that date until the present day".
The answer I must admit shocked me. From October 1981 until the end of 1982 there were only seven prosecutions for this offence. It would be interesting to know the figures from that date until today—not that I would ask the Minister when replying to have those figures at his fingertips.
As has already been said, there is a lot of abuse. As far back as 19th December 1982 this fact was recognised by the Department of Transport, which stated in a circular referring to the orange badge scheme:
"Unfortunately the scheme has come in for much criticism in recent years because of widespread abuse".
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked as a supplementary question, whether the Minister was aware that a number of people who had an orange badge had their pockets stuffed full of parking tickets. On the one hand—I admit that this is some time ago—we have disabled people who require to park where they can and they are getting parking tickets, whereas people who are abusing the scheme are parking more or less where they like and getting away with it.

691
One of the things that happens is that the ordinary motorist, when he finds that he cannot park close to where he wants to go, sees cars with orange badges and thinks, "Fair enough", but the next thing he sees is some hale and hearty person running along the road, opening the car door, jumping in and driving off. These people do not do the reputation of the scheme much good.
It is probably true that some of the abuses are quite unintentional. A few years ago I was talking to a friend of mine. I do not have his exact words, but basically he said, "It makes life so much easier for me when I go shopping for my wife, who is disabled. Using her orange badge I can park, do the shopping and get home to her very much quicker than before". I said, "But don't you know that you are entitled to use that badge for parking only when the badge holder, your wife, is in the vehicle?". He was genuinely surprised at this. Perhaps his wife, when she was granted her orange badge, knew about it, but he certainly did not.
I also raised in my Question three years ago the matter of badges not being returned, but that has been covered and I do not think I shall bore your Lordships with it further. The orange badge scheme was the first positive step in helping the disabled. But, as many noble Lords know full well, it is not only abused but it has several shortcomings. I may be wrong in this from what I have just heard, but I was under the impression that certainly in London a badge issued in one borough was no good for parking in another borough. If you happened to live in a borough where there were few shops (say, Hammersmith) and you wanted to go to some decent shops and so you drove to Chelsea, then you were out of luck.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the noble Earl permit me to intervene? May I point out that it is only the central London boroughs which do not accept the orange badge? An orange badge issued by Hammersmith is acceptable anywhere in England or Wales and also in Scotland.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am most obliged. I am glad that I covered myself slightly by saying that I did not know much about it. It was only a personal thought. That means that a lot of what I was going to say does not now apply.
The main question is why people who are disabled want to be mobile. If there is a restriction and a person goes to a restaurant and can park for only one or two hours, that means he has to hurry his meal to get away. The same applies if he wants to go to the theatre, or if he happens to be visiting friends or going to a wedding, a christening or even a funeral. Therefore, I should not like to see a restriction placed on the length of time—possibly it should not be all day everywhere, as in Scotland, but the system must be more flexible.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that he was basically against photographs. He thought that having the name was sufficient. If I were a traffic warden and I saw a car parked and the badge said that it was poor old Mr. J. Bloggs, how would I know who J. Bloggs was and whether he was entitled to a badge? Therefore, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). If you have a badge with a number on it
692
and you always carry with you a counterpart with the same number and your photograph, a policeman or anyone else could come up and ask, "Excuse me, is this your vehicle?". If you said yes, the policeman could then ask "May I see your counterpart?". If they did not match, you would then be guilty.
I have one final plea. It is all very well having parking facilities on public highways, but what about shopping centres and supermarkets? Nowadays most of these have spaces specifically for the disabled, and time and again if you check the cars not one of the spaces is being used for the right purpose. Disabled people have to park miles away because other people are so selfish and uncaring that they park close to the shopping centre. I feel that the law should be changed so that even on private land if you park where you should not and take up the space of someone who is disabled you can be heavily fined.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, it would be discourteous of me to contribute, however briefly, to any debate on the orange badge scheme without expressing my deep appreciation of the scheme's very existence and the privilege it is to use it. I confess to travelling by road as a disabled person since 1930, 41 years before the introduction of the scheme. Therefore, I really appreciate it.
Orange badges have transformed the situation in all areas except the London boroughs that have been named and has impelled those boroughs to make similar arrangements for their own disabled residents. This makes it possible for people like myself to wheel and deal provided that conditions do not deteriorate too far. It was in fear of this that I read the discussion paper and tried to follow the rather complicated comment on it by the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled whose careful work on the paper is almost dazzling in its fullness.
We know that many fully eligible badge holders have extreme difficulty finding somewhere to park. The paper suggests that the discretionary criteria appear to lead to unfairness; and the joint committee's answer here is clear. I wish to support the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The joint committee said that the best solution would be to change the criteria to that of the mobility allowance; namely, that a person should be unable, or virtually unable, to walk. This would be applicable, too, to those whose age exempts them from receiving the allowance. I would entirely support that view.
As regards medical assessment, the Joint Committee of Mobility for the Disabled does not see a real need, as I understand it, to establish an independent source. My view is that if by having another source there is any chance of reducing the issue to unqualified badge holders, then we ought to have that separate independent medical assessment. It could help GPs to be relieved of this onerous duty. I hope that the financial implications will not be found unacceptable, and that such a plan is adopted.
The period of the validity of the badge is discussed and the joint committee does not see that an annual issue would help matters. However, there is surely a case for extending the three-year period of issue where

693
the disabled person is permanently disabled. It would cut down the paperwork and the "aggro". This could only be recommended if the local authorities could be relied upon to have a good record of retrieval. Otherwise, it could be a formula for misuse by a survivor. The JCMD does not favour the proposal on these grounds.
On an earlier occasion in this House, I recommended photographs on badges to be the safest means of identification. The Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled claims that it would be difficult and/or expensive for some severely disabled people to obtain a suitable photograph and that one displayed on a windscreen could lead to racial and sexual harassment. It was not my intention that the photograph should face outwards, but the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled said that some disabled people could see all this—even being asked to undertake to comply with a request for a photograph—as being discriminatory. I agree with one thing. There are some pretty nervous disabled people in the community. We must remember them. The joint committee asks for more identification, checking and monitoring by signature, although it says that signatures should not be in biro which quickly fades.
The main difficulty is to find parking space. There are legitimate disabled people who resent being prevented from pursuing the role or routine they have developed, often with very great difficulty. To have won the struggle and then to lose it by too many orange badge holders on the road sends blood pressure soaring. It seems that more should be done to monitor that the provisions are being met, to ensure that the orange badge is not held by, and certainly not issued to, non-holders. There is no need to repeat the many good reasons why disabled people should receive positive help, not obstruction, to mobility. This is why the discussion paper is important and why I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his shrewdness in initiating the debate.
6.12 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should also like to start by thanking most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is visible to me if I turn round sharply. I should like to devote most of my remarks to the orange badge scheme discussion paper issued by the Department of Transport in August last year. As both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, have said, the scheme is just too big in its present form with 800,000 holders. Even taking deaths into account, newly disabled people are continually applying for orange badges and the scheme has become unmanageable in its present form.
I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy and Lady Lane-Fox, that the criteria must be narrowed and that the fourth discretionary category should be those people unable or virtually unable to walk, not those who have considerable difficulty in walking. This may seem hard but it is necessary if the scheme is to remain viable, and therefore to continue to be of benefit to those who most need it.
Various speakers have touched on the possibility of longer life for badges. Sitting here, I think that, in the absence of intervention by the Almighty, it is unlikely
694
that the condition of Members of the mobile Bench will change for the better. Therefore could we not have some longer life badges? As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, there should be some way of retrieving them when we no longer need them.
I turn for a moment to misuse of the scheme. At present, a badge can only be withdrawn for persistent misuse. It was suggested in the discussion paper that it could be withdrawn for one serious offence. The paper went on to give examples of four such serious offences which might justify withdrawal of the badge. The first was lending an orange badge to a non-disabled driver for illegal use: I entirely agree with that. The second example was not displaying a badge or a time clock. But surely, this is too severe a penalty for one misuse: a caution might be more appropriate. The third example was using an expired badge. I must confess to your Lordships that I got into trouble not long ago because my badge had expired and I had not noticed it. I would have felt justifiably aggrieved if my badge had been taken away because I had not noticed that it had expired. I wonder whether reminders could not be sent out to avoid this happening.
The fourth suggested offence warranting withdrawal of the badge was exceeding two hours parking on yellow lines. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and others have said, two hours is unrealistic; for a disabled person to get in and out of the car, do their shopping and so on. Two hours pass in no time at all.
Finally, I should like to suggest the creation of a new offence in order to make the scheme more manageable. It would become an offence to display the orange badge when the vehicle is not being used by the disabled person. The badge would simply need to be taken out of its holder and turned round when not being used by the disabled person. Would this not simplify the enforcement of this very useful scheme? It might mean a slightly larger holder so that someone with an impaired hand movement could manage easily to get the badge in and out.
We are most grateful to successive governments for this scheme, and we feel that with these and other suggestions it could be restored to full health.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I make this brief intervention to the debate tonight and I am proud to declare an interest as president of the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club. I am glad to see one of my vice-presidents, Lady Masham, here, who will be speaking after me. I hope we do not disagree too much.
There is no doubt in the minds of my members, and I am sure all Members of the House, of the enormous importance that the disabled drivers' badge has in the daily lives of disabled people. But there is increasing and growing concern, not only among members of the club, but among members of the public generally in the abuse that is going on which sadly diminishes the value and respect for the badges. That is the sad aspect. There is no doubt that stricter control is necessary and that more prosecutions would have a salutary effect. The members to whom I have spoken feel that even when their members have let the side down the withdrawal for a few months of the badge would be a good idea.

695
We all look with some dismay at the figure of 800,000 badges—a 17 per cent. increase in three years, if that goes on for the next two years. I come to the reluctant conclusion that serious consideration should be given to the issuing of annual badges. I know this would cause considerable inconvenience to some people, and obviously the permanently disabled should have a different system. But I should like to prophesy that if suddenly all the yellow badges became blue badges one year there would be a drop of about 40 per cent. in the number of badges issued. We all know that badges are not handed back when people die and there are many badges in the country which should not be on the cars on which they are displayed. After all, is it any worse to apply for a badge annually than it is to apply for a television licence or a car licence? I feel that this should be considered carefully as should the use of photographs, to which again members of the club have no strong objection.
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that an independent medical assessment would in the end be the most sensible situation. It is not only family doctors but traffic wardens and policemen who are obviously very reluctant to harry disabled people, even if they think that some abuse is taking place.
However, I am sure that we would all deplore any increase of bureaucracy which in turn would increase the burden on the disabled. I certainly would not want this debate to go down as a debate concerned mainly with complaining about abuses. That is not what it should be. What is at stake is much more important: the welfare, happiness and mobility of disabled people, which is so very important to them. They should be encouraged to exercise that mobility and to exercise it in the free way in which we who are not disabled can enjoy it. But, I believe a price has to paid: that price might be greater bureaucracy, and it might be stricter control. In the end, however, I believe that disabled people will he better off when their badge is respected and honoured as it should be.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to start by saying how pleased I am to follow the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and how much his generosity and kindness to disabled drivers are appreciated. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this matter of the parking of vehicles used by handicapped people to the attention of your Lordships. To many disabled people throughout the country this is a vitally important matter and it is becoming more so as towns are shutting their centres and shopping streets are getting further and further away for disabled people. Handicapped people are becoming more and more disabled because of this. The chance to work is also becoming more limited.
It is with a certain amount of frustration that I talk in the debate this evening. It was in 1981 that I took the Disabled Persons Bill (now an Act) through your Lordships' House. Was that legislation merely cosmetic for the Year of the Disabled, to look as though Parliament was doing something to help disabled people? The problems of parking seem no
696
better. Section 2 of the Act deals with places reserved for the vehicles of disabled persons and it puts a £50 fine on people who are not disabled but who use those places and also on the wrongful use of the badges of disabled persons. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, how many able-bodied people have been convicted under the Disabled Persons Act of 1981 for abusing parking places and the use of the badge?
I hear of so many severely disabled people who are trying to pursue as normal a life as possible but who find that the stress and strain of trying to park near the place they need to go to is getting them down. In the last two days I have spoken to two doctors, one employed by the DHSS and another one at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. Both said that they thought a severely disabled person could park anywhere. That is not the case. People just do not understand the difficulties that disabled people have to contend with merely in trying to get about in their normal lives.
My noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) has a major problem with her teeth, some of which were knocked out at the time of the accident which fractured several vertebrae in her neck and back, leaving her paralysed. When visiting her dentist near Sloane Street, she had a warning not to park her car there again. In no way was it obstructing anything. She now has to take a hired car from your Lordships' House for the return journey at great extra expense.
The examples I am now giving your Lordships are of people who cannot use public transport: they cannot get on a bus or a tube and they cannot walk or get into a cab. A married man who works for a wheelchair firm was delivering wheelchairs to a shop in central London. He received a parking ticket. Will he risk getting more parking tickets? Will he have to give up his job or leave London out? A young barrister who is a tetraplegic (that is, somebody paralysed from the neck down) was working in the City of London. The only way he could get to his place of work was by car. He got parking tickets and was taken to court. This young man has emigrated to Australia.
Another man I spoke to yesterday is now in hospital. He is a lecturer in engineering at Brunel University. When he has to come to central London he has so much trouble finding a place to park that it has put extra stress into his life. He might not be in hospital now if life were just a little bit easier. A headmistress from a school in York who has spina bifida has found the hassle of trying to carry shopping to a car which she has had to park far from the shops just too much extra stress and strain on her, and she has written to me in desperation. All these people enjoy their jobs; they are taxpayers and they have to a great extent overcome their disabilities, but the extra problem of trying to park is just too much.
As a country, we are behind Australia, New Zealand, Canada and most states of America in the facilities provided for disabled people. I ask this question. What is to be done if we have legislation like the 1981 Act and nobody takes any notice of it? The problem is that one has to be severely disabled to understand the problem or else to have some close friend or relative who comes with one and who knows.

697
Outside the Army and Navy stores the City of Westminster allocated a parking place for a disabled person. It put it at the end of the street where there was a very high kerb. At the other end of the street there was a ramp up the kerb; there was placed a rubbish skip. Which took priority, a disabled person or the rubbish skip? I am afraid that it was the rubbish skip. The "Mobile Bench" in your Lordships' House has been talking about these needs for a very long time. They are getting older and their limbs are getting weaker. They know the necessities even more.
One last matter of concern involves another group of people who have special parking discs. These are doctors who visit the sick and the elderly in their homes. Doctors have a doctor-on-call parking disc and they display the address being visited. This is an arrangement made by the BMA after consultation with other parties, including the police. A doctor visiting an ill patient could be involved in a matter of life or death. The BMA has told me that since wheel clamping has been handed over to a private firm several doctors have had their cars clamped. If that happens, doctors may stop visiting patients in their homes, with disastrous effects for disabled patients, as many of them cannot get to the surgeries and indeed may be unable to get out of their homes at all. Also, many doctors' surgeries are inaccessible.
I hope the Department of Transport will show itself to be responsible and caring in this matter because, if not, it will be the sick and the disabled who will suffer. As doctors are now having their cars clamped, I ask the Minister for an assurance that disabled people will not also have their cars clamped.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe we should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,—as I think everyone has done—for giving us the opportunity to discuss once again the orange badge scheme, and particularly the discussion paper of the Department of Transport. It has obviously been a well-informed debate, because well over half of those who have taken part have first-hand experience of this subject—something which has been of great value.
I think everyone wants to make it possible for people with disabilities to share in as full a life as possible, and the orange badge scheme, with which I had a certain involvement with Alf Morris in another place some years ago, has made a great contribution to the welfare of many thousands of disabled people. I must confess that until I saw the Department of Transport's paper I did not realise just how many thousands were involved. I had no idea at all that it was such an extremely high figure.
I believe we all want to continue with the scheme, but we must recognise the problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said, and if we want to improve the scheme this is one of the nettles we have to grasp. How can we maintain and increase the benefits of the scheme without imposing a great burden upon the traffic flow? Many examples and hints have been given today about the methods that could be used. I think that most badge holders—and certainly the representatives to whom I have
698
spoken—accept the need to keep traffic moving. After all, a disabled driver is a motorist when he is driving and he wants to get to his destination just as does anyone else. So for everyone's benefit the traffic must be kept moving as well as possible.
I believe—and it has been shown clearly today—that those who have orange badges and use them properly are just as concerned as the rest of us that the scheme shall not be abused. They are also very concerned about unfair use of the badges. Many anecdotes have been told about abuse of the badges, and one of the worst abuses is the way in which able-bodied people have used the badges, particularly in bays designated for badge holders.
I understand that in many cases—the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, put a question specifically to the Minister and I shall be interested in his reply—able-bodied drivers who have been using designated bays unlawfully have been prosecuted under the Road Traffic Acts as against the Disabled Persons Act. I understand that in the vast majority of cases there is merely a parking fine imposed, instead of using the Disabled Persons Act. That Act may be more clumsy and cumbersome to use from the point of view of the police, but there is also quite a difference in the level of fine.
I understand that badge holders themselves have a list of do's and don'ts—where they should or should not park—and some of the examples which were given in the discussion document, and which may have been specially selected, show that there can be abuse by badge holders. They either feel that they have a special right to do things that others cannot do or they are thoughtless. The impression given in the pictures in the discussion paper is that the whole side of a shopping street is taken up by disabled vehicles, and that is not the sort of thing that helps the public's appreciation of the use of the orange badge. I do not know how general that practice is, or whether that was a fortuitous congregation of orange badge holders. So there can be cases of bad and inconsiderate use of the badge. Anyone who has a badge is, I assume, also a competent driver and when someone is driving a car he should obey all the rules as much as anyone else who is using a car on the road.
According to the people to whom I have spoken, the most annoying abuse of the badge is when able-bodied people pretend that they are driving someone else, when they are really nipping out and using the car to do their own shopping. The important point is that one sighting like that goes round the saloon bars very quickly. It multiplies and soon everyone believes that at least half the people who have orange badges are abusing them. That may be wrong, but ultimately it becomes a fact of life.
It is one of the handed-down wisdoms that the orange badge scheme is being unfairly used. We ask a lot of people who already have difficulties, but I am afraid that orange badge holders have to be like Caesar's wife and be absolutely correct in their use of them, as must those whom they allow to drive for them. It has emerged very clearly in this debate that a vehicle should have an orange badge only when it is legally entitled to the protection of the scheme, which is when the badge holder is in the vehicle either as a passenger or as a driver.

699
I now come to the question of the changes that the department has proposed in regard to the badges. I am absolutely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on the question of photographs. I do not like the idea that there should be a photograph on the windscreen. Why do I not have one? That would prove that I am not stealing a car. As regards the name, what right has anyone to know whose car it is just because someone happens to be disabled? So long as there is a number on the badge which corresponds with the registration number of one of the vehicles that the badge holder owns, and there is a separate identity card with a picture on it corresponding to the number on the badge, nothing more is required.
The dangers of photographs have been mentioned by some noble Lords. There are a number of loutish people in the world and there could be a racist angle. If they saw that someone was of a race towards which they felt aggressive, they might wait for the person to come back or do damage to the vehicle. The badge holder might be a young woman of whom someone could take advantage, or someone might have facial injuries which he did not like to have exposed to the public on a badge on the windscreen. So I hope that we can get rid of this idea about the badge. All we need is the badge number coupled with the vehicle registration number and an identity card which is carried by the person who is entitled to have the badge.
We can go to other areas of government for help as regards the standard medical certificate. All your Lordships who have any experience of local government will know that people going to get houses always take a medical certificate showing how much they need a house. It is very difficult for a doctor to say to a patient whom he has known for a long time, "I can't help you in this." It is putting him in a difficult situation. Apart from that, he does not know the overall picture. He may feel that someone needs help, whereas if you have a board such as there is in many local authorities, it can look at the doctor's certificate and say "We are afraid that is not enough." It may be passing the buck, though I do not think it is. In Glasgow, Edinburgh and a number of other cities, there is a medical panel that meets every quarter or so, depending on the amount of business. It goes through the medical certificates and grades them, and I see nothing wrong in that.
I think that it is being too hard to say that only those who are totally unable to walk or who walk with very great difficulty should get a badge. I think that there could be borderline cases and I would rather have a central medical group looking at the problem in each borough and checking medical certificates every month or over whatever period might be found to be convenient in order to decide whether certificates should be granted. This would take the heat off the doctor and such a body might also have a better idea of the situation within the area and be more expert on the problems of the orange badge scheme than the average GP.
I turn now to the matter of taking badges away. I think that the question of withdrawal for use of a badge by another person should depend upon the circumstances. It is too hard merely to say that the badge should be withdrawn if another person uses it.
700
There may be circumstances of emergency and there would need to be some sort of appeal procedure. For instance, a badge holder who parked in a taxi bay, on a suspended meter or on a double yellow line should not have a badge taken away for that one occasion. I have done such things. I am almost certain that the Minister has done something heinous of that sort—perhaps not while he has been a transport Minister, but at some other time. This matter must be looked at very carefully before we go to the extent of taking a badge away from someone for one offence, particularly if there is no opportunity for an appeal.
The final point I should like to make concerns the question of whether or not there should be an effort made to have badges recognised in central London to a greater extent than they now are. When I was involved in this area, the central London authorities put up a good case, much as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, did today. That case concerned the numbers of people who might wish to come to central London. However, I think we should look a bit more closely at this problem. Perhaps we may at some stage reach the sort of situation which we find in American hotels, where a jockey takes a car and parks it. That may be going too far. However, it is the sort of thing which might happen in the future.
The best thing that can happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, pointed out, is for the people involved in the control of badges and the badge holders themselves to be very correct in the use of badges and for the badges to be used to supply the need of people who must have them in order to live a full life. As has been said, that may be rather harsh. However, the scheme should be used to help those who greatly need some flexibility in parking. Then we would have a right to go not only to the central London boroughs but also to the other boroughs which have time restrictions and ask them to rethink the case.
The first priority must be to get the criteria tightened and to gain more respect for the orange badge. Once there is real respect for that badge, I think we shall be entitled to ask for more concessions from the boroughs both in and outside London.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for initiating a debate on this important topic. He is well known for his interest in matters related to disabled people, as indeed is your Lordships' House. That has been amply demonstrated this afternoon. The subject is of great importance to many people and I believe it is right that your Lordships should formally consider it.
As your Lordships know, the Government issued the discussion paper in August of last year. I feel that some misunderstanding has crept into the debate as regards some of the possibilities and proposals put forward in it. The belief may have been that all of those matters emanate from the Department of Transport. That is not the case. Some of them come from the police, some from local authorities and some from other bodies. The discussion paper considers in the light of experience over the last few years what might be done to ensure that the eligibility criteria for badges are the fairest possible and how exploitation of the scheme by the able-bodied might be reduced.

701
The Department of Transport has received nearly 700 comments on the paper. These have come from a wide range of interested bodies as well as members of the public. I am grateful to all those who have responded to our paper. Their comments are being carefully considered. I have also listened with great interest to the views of noble Lords this evening. Many points have been made about what should or should not happen. These thoughts will also help shape the results of the review. The Government are most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions this evening.
It may help the House if I begin by giving a little of the history of the orange badge scheme of parking concessions for disabled people. The scheme came into operation on 1st December 1971 by means of regulations made under Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Further regulations made in 1975 extended the scheme to blind people and improved the concessions available by permitting vehicles displaying orange badges to park on yellow lines. The scheme is intended to help people who have very considerable difficulty in walking and the blind to lead a normal life by allowing them to park close to shops and other places they may wish to visit.
The scheme allows badge holders to park free of charge and without time limit at parking meters or where others may park only for a limited time. They may also park on single or double yellow lines for up to two hours in England and Wales (provided a timeclock is displayed) or without any time limit in Scotland. Several noble Lords have mentioned the anomaly between regulations in Scotland and those in England and Wales. That is one of the matters about which we have been and will be receiving comments.
Badgeholders must not park in a bus lane; where a ban on loading or unloading is in force; or where there is a double white line in the centre of the road. The scheme does not, however, provide exemption from the parking restrictions, except that orange badge holders cannot be wheel-clamped. I should like to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that orange badge holders cannot be wheel clamped. That is provided in Section 105 (1)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.
Badge holders still have the same obligation as other road users to ensure that they do not park dangerously and obstructively. The scheme does not cover off-street car parks, although many local authorities provide some parking concessions for disabled people in car parks. The scheme operates throughout England, Scotland and Wales, with the exception of a small part of central London. It is administered by local authorities, which assess the eligibility of people for badges following the criteria laid down in the regulations.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, discussed whether the scheme should or should not be extended to cover those four central London authorities. Any change would require an amendment to the regulations. We cannot compel a council to adopt the national scheme. Any future improvement must be achieved by agreement. However, some progress has been recently achieved.
702
Westminster now allows all orange badge holders to use on-street disabled parking bays. This is a modest but positive step in the right direction. We shall consider what more can be done.
The Government's previous review of the scheme began in 1976. This revealed that although the scheme provided very real assistance to disabled people on overcoming their parking problems, an increasing number of complaints about abuse of the concession was causing concern to local authorities, the police and disabled people themselves. This resulted in a number of measures being introduced over the next few years to combat that abuse. These included a new offence to cover the misuse of badges by able-bodied people; new regulations which introduced tighter eligibility criteria; further guidance to local authorities about the administration of the scheme; the introduction of a standard medical certificate; and the issue of transparent adhesive-backed windscreen pockets to make it easy for the badge to be removed when the badge holder was not using the vehicle.
By 1986, the regulations governing the eligibility criteria had been in effect for three years. Since badges are valid for three years, everyone had then been re-assessed under the revised criteria. That is why the Government are now trying to assess how the new provisions have operated in practice. Unfortunately, the scheme continues to attract much criticism. The police, local highway authorities and severely disabled people themselves have been concerned about the number of people holding badges, apparent abuse of the scheme by able-bodied people and the traffic and enforcement problems that are associated with it. If the scheme is to continue to be workable, a balance must be found between the parking needs of disabled people and the traffic considerations of the community as a whole. Many noble Lords made that point.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said, there are now nearly 800,000 valid orange badges in circulation, which represents about one in 20 cars which may legally ignore some of the parking restrictions that apply to others. In an intervention the noble Lord, Lord Paget, suggested that some of those people might have died. The figures relate to the badges in issue. Relatives should of course return the badge if the badge holder dies. If they do not do so and continue to use the badge it is an offence. However, it is unlikely that there are a very large number of such badges as badges are valid for only three years. That is perhaps a reason for not extending the life of badges beyond three years, as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox.
The scheme is highly valued by recipients of badges, but its privileges can continue to be of value only if it retains the respect of the general public. Badges must be limited in number and issued only to those with the greatest mobility problems. With any scheme such as this it is very difficult to determine the dividing line between those who should be eligible for a badge and its associated parking concessions and those who regrettably cannot be given one.
It would be very nice to be in a position to give badges to anyone with mobility problems; but that would not be practical, not least because severely disabled people will be unable to reach the places they need to visit because the available parking spaces are

703
taken up by other people, with badges, who are better able to walk than they are. That is why the issue of badges must be restricted to those most in need of the concession.
There is also the issue of abuse by able-bodied people either using badges to which they are not entitled or parking in bays set aside for disabled people. We do not have statistics on the level of abuse and I believe that statistics would be difficult to obtain. But many noble Lords will have heard anecdotes of people "running" into shops from cars displaying orange badges or making an equally speedy return when a traffic warden is spotted near the vehicle. Other examples have been given in the debate. Such general impressions of widespread abuse, whether or not justified, are matters for concern because they lessen the respect of the public for the scheme. I shall shortly be coming to offences and prosecutions.
The department recognises that for many disabled people a car can provide the best solution for overcoming their mobility handicap. We are therefore committed to helping and encouraging them to achieve that independence which comes with car ownership. For example, the Government have set up the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service—MAVIS—at Crowthorne in Berkshire where disabled people can go for an assessment of their ability to drive and receive expert advice on suitable car adaptations or modifications to meet their own particular needs. Furthermore, the Government will be holding the third Mobility Road Show—again at Crowthorne—on 12th to 14th June this year. The roadshow, which is held every other year, brings together all the major car and car control manufacturers and provides a unique opportunity for disabled people not only to see but also to test drive the very wide range of cars and adaptations now available.
I now respond to the points made by noble Lords during the debate. Perhaps the most common point concerned the abuse and the offences involved. Legislation already covers various types of abuse of the scheme. Under the current regulations local authorities have the power to withdraw a badge if the holder misuses it. This includes lending a badge to other people or failing to abide by the rules of the scheme. A person who uses a badge without being entitled to it commits an offence under Section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The maximum fine for that offence is £400 and that applies in addition to whatever penalty may be imposed for the parking offence also committed; for example, parking on a yellow line.
It is also an offence for an able-bodied person to use a parking place reserved for a disabled badge holder, on or off-street, which has been so designated by an order made by the local authority under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The police can issue fixed penalty notices to offenders, and both the police and the local authorities have the power to prosecute. If prosecuted, able-bodied people who misuse such places again face a fine of up to £400. We are currently considering what further measures, if any, should be introduced.
As I said earlier, and particularly in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and
704
the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, there are no central figures for prosecutions of able-bodied people or fixed penalty notices issued to badge holders or able-bodied people in connection with the scheme. The department has seen the results of a few local surveys which demonstrate that the police and traffic wardens do take action where appropriate, although they are careful to deal most sympathetically with disabled people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is any way he can obtain that information so that we may know how many able-bodied people who abuse the scheme have been penalised?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly see whether there is any further information. As I said, there have been a few sample analyses in various local authorities and if I can obtain more information I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Turning to the issue of temporary badges raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in particular, the current regulations governing the scheme allow badges to be issued to permanently disabled people for only three years. The department receives a steady flow of inquiries about the issue of temporary badges to people who are awaiting operations, who have had sporting accidents, or who are pregnant, and so on. A number of local authorities would also like the scope to issue temporary badges under these circumstances. That suggestion has been aired in the discussion paper on the scheme and comments on that possible change are being considered.
Many noble Lords spoke about photographs. It was suggested that a photograph on the badge would aid enforcement and deter casual use of the badge by people other than the badge holder. Some organisations have opposed the concept of a photograph on the front of the badge. They would prefer a photograph on the back of the badge or on a separate identity card, as various noble Lords suggested. That is under consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and other speakers suggested that the two-hour limit on yellow line parking should be abolished. That change has been put forward and is under consideration. The noble Baroness also spoke about the difficulty of access to badly designed pedestrianised areas which leads to problems for orange badge holders. The Government are well aware of the need for local authorities to strike the right balance in designing schemes. A discussion paper currently available from the Department of Transport with that title, Striking the Right Balance, gives suggestions, and further guidance will follow.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the misuse of reserved space in off-street car parks by non-badge holders. We agree on the importance of clear signing so that people know where to park and where not to park. It is open to private owners of car parks and local authorities to provide this and then enforce the rules. It would be difficult for the government to attempt to enforce the rules on private property—for example, in a supermarket car park.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu spoke about the annual renewal of badges. That idea is under

705
consideration but it could lead to a considerably increased workload for the authorities—and indeed more effort for the disabled themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, particularly referred to the clamping of doctors' cars. I understand that she is in correspondence with my noble friend at the Home Office on that subject. But doctors' vehicles displaying the British Medical Association badge should not normally be wheel clamped. The noble Baroness mentioned the new privatised arrangements for clamping; but they do not alter the fact that police officers are still responsible for authorising the clamping, and of course before the new operator can move in the police must authorise it. However, as I say, it should not happen to those with a BMA badge. I have already covered the point on clamping of orange badge holders.
Various noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), suggested that local authorities should perhaps send a reminder when a badge was due to expire. Some local authorities already do so and we shall certainly consider whether we should encourage others to do likewise. We do not of course want to introduce unnecessary complications and expense at the same time.
The Government intend to put together a firm package of proposed changes and this will be the subject of further consultation with representative organisations including those representing disabled people. Any significant change to the scheme can only be made with the approval of Parliament and any changes will be well publicised, including the preparation of an updated leaflet on the scheme.
Finally, may I repeat my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. I can assure all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate that we shall consider very carefully what has been said this evening in this most interesting and informative debate.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have been good enough to take part in this debate. I am pleased also to have had the distinction of hearing no fewer than four speakers from what my noble friend Lord Ingleby described so felicitously as the "mobile Bench". They speak from firsthand experience, and although the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that they were getting older, clearly they are still as fluent and persuasive as ever.
I should also like to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Brabazon, for replying to so many of the main points. During the period of consultation that has been taking place, many suggestions have been made from all parts of the House and it is good to know that all of them will be taken into account by the Government before any conclusions are reached. Whether in future the badges should be issued annually, whether we should move to another colour (that was a suggestion to try to eliminate some of the badges which should no longer be in use) or whether there should be a photograph are all matters that are
706
due for consideration. However, I believe that the most important point is how the schemes are to be more closely policed and more frequently challenged by the police and traffic wardens if they have the authority to do so. Although changes may be made to the badges, it is the monitoring and policing of the schemes that will be most important.
I very much appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who agreed that there was a need to tighten up the system, as I suggested at the beginning of the debate. He also recognised that there ought to be independent medical decisions because it is extremely difficult for a person's GP to take the main decision.
All those who have taken part in this debate have appreciated the help that the orange badge scheme has given to severely handicapped people. We have all welcomed the statement that my noble friend Lord Brabazon was able to make about the use by the police of fixed penalties and powers of prosecution, with the penalty of a high fine, which is even being considered for further elevation. The police have many duties, but I hope that they will be able to give more of their time to this problem of challenging and monitoring the system.
I have just one more point to make. The Minister referred to the possibility of issuing temporary badges. There has been a lot of criticism in this House in the past about the fact that a badge can only be obtained for three years, neither more nor less, even though it may only be needed for a short period. In my suggestion I was certainly not thinking of ordinary accidents, such as a broken leg or a ski-ing accident, nor of pregnancies. I was thinking more of advances that have recently been made in surgery. So many more types of hip operations are now possible that the normal course for someone who may have been completely crippled with arthritis for two or three years, is for them to have one or two hip replacements and be leaping like lambs in quite a short time. It is that kind of situation that I had in mind and which I think now requires badges of a more temporary nature.
Again, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Local Government Act 1986]:
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 7 to 11 and insert—
("2A.—(1) A local authority shall not—

(a) promote homosexuality or publish material for the promotion of homosexuality;

(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship by the publication of such material or otherwise;

(c) give financial or other assistance to any person for either of the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission from the House I should like to make a few general comments on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 because both stem from the same situation. During the Committee stage I asked a number of noble Lords who had proposed amendments not to press them in order that we could report the Bill unamended and thereby gain a week before we read it a third time and passed it over to the other place. I gave an undertaking that those amendments with which I had much sympathy would be forwarded to the other place. However, it seemed to me that that was a rather untidy arrangement and that it would be much better to move them on Third Reading in this House.
The amendments are very simple. Perhaps I may take the second one first in order to get it out of the way. Amendment No. 2 merely pushes a little syntactical sandpaper over what was a rather rough grammatical passage in the early draft.
The main amendment is Amendment No. 1 which has taken note of the wishes of my noble kinsman Lord Kilbracken, and of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and, so far as it can be met, the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. These alterations to the first part of the Bill give effect to this aim but I ask your Lordships to note that in the context of the Bill, I am one of a partnership, in that, rather like Castor and Pollux, I am the spokesman and my noble colleague Lord Campbell of Alloway is the draftsman. If there are any questions about the draftsmanship of this amendment and how it meets the criticisms made by the noble Lords to whom I have referred, I shall leave him to speak for it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment seeks to clarify and extend the first limb of Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands. This part of the Bill is of general application. It is by virtue of paragraph (a) in the amendment that the distinction is drawn between promoting homosexuality and publishing material for the promotion of homosexuality. It widens the ambit of Section 2 A(1) as it stands by removing the qualification of only
"publishing or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship".
This limitation was one which did not appeal to certain noble Lords. They wanted a wider provision. Paragraph (c) deals with indirect promotion and publication as distinct from the direct promotion and publication which is dealt with in paragraph (a), both of which, of course, are proscribed. The second limb of subsection (1) as it stands, which is concerned only with the promotion of teaching in schools by the publication of such material or in any other way, is, in effect, a redraft as appears in paragraph (b) of the amendment, subject to a cosmetic change. Because, although the second limb of subsection (1) is designed to proscribe those positive images as an acceptable family relationship, the point has been taken by noble Lords that whatever may be said to the contrary by the local authorities, the homosexual relationship is not a true family relationship but a pretence. The amendment takes that concept on board.
708
Direct promotion is proscribed by paragraph (b); indirect promotion by paragraph (c). That aspect of the abuse of rates proscribed by the Bill is of general application under paragraph (a) of the amendment and specific application under paragraph (b) of the amendment. The enforcement procedures under subsections (2) and (3), which stand, apply to both. It is due only to the care and trouble taken by noble Lords on all sides of the House that the draft has been improved in that way. I do not know whether it was Castor or Pollux who was the draftsman. I have done my best with it.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my noble friend Lady David has asked me to apologise for her absence this evening, which is unavoidable, and to say on her behalf that she welcomes the clarification in the amendment, especially, in paragraph (a).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("were") and insert ("have been")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will your Lordships allow a brief intervention? The discussion on the Bill has afforded us a useful opportunity for an exchange of views with the Government on a matter of great public concern. A sincere debt of gratitude is due to my noble friend the Minister for all the care and trouble that he has taken and for keeping an open mind on the important question of individual challenge, direct enforcement and the limitations of judicial review, which he did when speaking in the debate on the local authorities on questions which are directly in point on this Bill.
As this Bill passes, much of what was at one time controversial is no longer controversial. The lapsed ethos of traditional values has been reasserted, and the principle of the Bill, with its direct enforcement procedure, has been accepted as apt on all sides of the House. In the wake of a recent debate, it is understood that the Government cannot introduce general legislation in this Session of Parliament, and so as on this there is an intolerable aspect of abuse—positive images, the erosion of parental control and the hazarding of the moral welfare of children—the Bill makes but an advisory distress signal to another place. The hope is that it may serve as a basis for an urgent interim measure, pending general legislation, to end that intolerable abuse.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I approve of the Bill. I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Halsbury and his friends on what they have done in this matter. The Bill is necessary.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this gives me a convenient opportunity to remind the House of the Government's position on the Bill. As my noble friend

709
Lord Skelmersdale said on Second Reading, the Government have every sympathy with the aims of the noble Earl's proposals, and while accepting and supporting the principles underlying the Bill, there are nevertheless doubts about its provisions in a number of respects.
That is partly because local education authorities are about to lose any power to impose their view of sex education in schools by virtue of the provisions of the new Education Act, since the new style governing bodies, with their increased parental representation, will control the content and organisation of any education offered in their school. That Act must now be given a chance to prove its effectiveness.
The Government do not believe that the enforcement measures contained in the Bill are necessary. Legal procedures are already adequate to ensure that all those with an interest, including parents, can pursue a case in the courts. Furthermore, the Government are also preparing, in discussion with the local authority associations, a code of practice on local authority publicity under Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986. The intention is that that should help achieve part of the objective of the Bill. The latest version of the code makes it clear that publicity by local authorities should not attack or appear to undermine generally accepted moral standards. We do not therefore believe that the Bill is necessary or an appropriate method of dealing with this one small aspect of the problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she will take on board the considered view of many noble Lords on all sides of the House that her assertion that the Education Act is apt to deal with this problem is totally misconceived? There is no such thing as parent power, about which everyone talks. Sitting on boards arranged by a Secretary of State is no substitute for giving ratepayers or parents direct assess to the courts to assert their rights. There are many of us who, although we are loyal to the Government, believe that the Government's views are misconceived. I ask the noble Baroness to think again.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I only wanted to add to what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, that the noble Earl's Bill plainly represents the considered view, after full discussion, of a large number of your Lordships. I hope that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend will take that into account when considering what further action may be necessary in another place. There is strong feeling about this matter. Many people will be sad to see the noble Earl's gallant initiative frustrated. Many of us hope that the Government will handle the matter in this way.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if I may end with a rhetorical question: what is wrong with a double-barrelled shotgun? Let the Department of Education and Science have its own legislation. That is one barrel. My little Bill is another barrel. What we miss with one, we may be able to shoot down with another.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Order of Commitment of 28th January last be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
I have never moved a Motion with such reluctance. I hope that your Lordships will understand if I speak with deep feeling and a heavy heart. Noble Lords will recollect that when the Bill was read a second time on 28th January the debate lasted some hours. I thought that it had passed its first hurdle, as indeed did other noble Lords from the reports of the debate which I read afterwards. Of course quite a few noble Lords were opposed to the Bill. That was only to be expected. However, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, told us that the Government supported it and he commended it to the House. There was not a large number of noble Lords who waited until the Division—72 voted—but then it did not take place until half-past 11. The Bill was then passed by a majority of about 14 per cent. I know that The Times described this as scraping through, but that is the kind of remark which we expect nowadays from The Times in describing such a majority.
I was confidently expecting to steer the Bill through a Committee of the whole House tonight. However, I should obviously have taken more note of the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He said, and I quote his words from the Official Report of 28th January, at col. 1450:
"If this Bill gets a Second Reading we shall have to fight all along the line".
He went on to say,
"There is a long, bitter trail ahead if this Bill gets a Second Reading".
I should have realised that the noble Lord is indeed a man of his word. I have been advised that this House would witness what I think are called in some places filibusters night after night. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that the House would have to listen to remarks that I would make in Committee ad nauseam. On the contrary, I think that the House would have had to listen to remarks ad nauseam by the noble Lord and others with him.
I am advised that there would be amendment after amendment. I am advised that the business of this House would have been seriously disrupted by these proceedings. I am advised that the staff of the House would have been kept on duty until very late hours. I am advised that noble Lords would have been in similar straits. This would have been contrary to the traditions of your Lordships' House. I felt that I could not do that to noble Lords. Accordingly, after taking soundings through the usual channels and being advised to move the Motion which is before your Lordships' House, with great reluctance I agreed to do so.
I feel that I ought to put before the House the reasons for this reluctance. The first is personal. If a Bill of this kind ever returns to the House it will not be mine. For personal reasons—into which I shall not enter here—I am resigning my See on 1st April and from that date I cease to be a Member of your

711
Lordships' House. I have no right even to appear before the Select Committee which I am asking noble Lords to set up.
Despite a clear majority in the Division, despite the promise of government support, I have been successfully pressed into killing my Bill, which is so close to my heart. I feel it all the more as I now have evidence in my support as a result of a special computer programme at the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys which I suppose might reach the Select Committee. This may be politics but I confess I am surprised to see it in this House.
Secondly, this Bill will be delayed, perhaps fatally. This means that hundreds of babies will be killed at a time when they would be capable of being born alive. In 1985 there were 494 abortions of 24 weeks and over, so the OPCS informs me, and, in the first nine months of last year, 196.
I cannot anticipate the findings of the Select Committee. But if it recommends that the Bill proceeds there will not be much time in this Session to send it, or a similar Bill, to be considered in another place. In any case, a dissolution of Parliament would bring the Select Committee to an end unless it was reconstituted. I moved the Bill because I believed that it could become law, but the Motion which I am being pressed to move makes that less likely unless somebody else decides to re-introduce it.
The third reason for my reluctance in moving this Motion is that I am committed to the democratic process and I greatly regret that a Bill passed at Second Reading by a clear majority and supported by the Government cannot proceed along what most people would think of as normal democratic lines. It is only with great reluctance that I give precedence to the parliamentary convenience of your Lordships' House.
However, I see the argument on the other side. Indeed, it has won my agreement. This Bill seems to have given rise to considerable emotional disturbance on the part of certain persons. I can see that it would be best to get it off the Floor of the House rather than to create the bitterness and inconvenience of acrimonious exchanges night after night—and if I may judge from the language of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on Second Reading as I find it in the Official Report, these are indeed likely to be acrimonious.
I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for I am nearly done—and indeed I am nearly done with speaking in this House. The Times informed its readers that I am trying to save this Bill by sending it to a Select Committee. I am doing nothing of the kind. I like a fair fight whether I win or lose. Concerning this Bill and the amendments, I would give blow for blow, because I believe in the Bill and I care about the babies that will be killed when they could be born alive. My reason for moving the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper is this, and this alone: the convenience of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of 28th January last be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.—(The Lord Bishop of Birmingham.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall not respond either to the tone or to the contents of the speech of the right reverend Prelate. This is not the moment for further acrimony or controversy. This is the moment for conciliation and an effort to have the Bill examined as closely as it requires—and it does require that—in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
Referral to the Select Committee does not kill the Bill. It is not going to the mortuary. It is going to the clinic. When we have heard the evidence about its condition and we have deliberated about the remedies, after a few transplants it may emerge a fit and proper Bill for the approval of your Lordships' House. It may be a candidate for popular approval too. That is not unheard of.
I wish the right reverend Prelate had studied the record of the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on animal experimentation and the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to study the controversy surrounding that painful and emotional subject. The right reverend Prelate would have realised that it would have been better had he proposed at the very outset—after the Second Reading—that the Bill should go to a Select Committee for examination and report.
We do not have Standing Committees upstairs which are a little away from publicity and public gaze. All our Committee stages are on the Floor of the House almost without exception. The right reverend Prelate must surely understand that as parliamentarians we follow procedures at times which ensure that a Bill with which we disagree receives the examination and the scrutiny that we think it ought to have. That is not a filibuster. The amendments which are put forward are not a filibuster. The amendments have been put forward to enable the right reverend Prelate to grasp more readily the full implications of what he is doing.
The right reverend Prelate was certainly unaware when he proposed the Bill of the controversy that he would arouse, and the implications of any attempt to amend the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. That Act has been lying moribund for years. This Bill stirs up a good deal of discontent with its provisions which has probably been muted because the Act has been so little used. We have a focus on an Act of Parliament which for 30 years has been ineffectual, which has not resulted in a single successful prosecution throughout that time, and which the right reverend Prelate's Bill proposes shall stand guard over the new dispensation.
It will be no more successful now than it has been over the years of its existence. In any case, it represents a remedy for a narrow margin of behaviour for which the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 did not provide, nor did the law of murder. The Act of 1929 was an attempt to bridge the gap between those two.
To apply it now with the Abortion Act in operation raises much wider issues. The Act of 1929 would no longer be dealing with the miseries of servant girls and others who at that time were denied abortions, who could not obtain any lawful relief from their pregnant condition and who were ultimately driven to strangle their children at birth. That is what the 1929 Act was

713
intended to stop and to make a criminal offence. It is not suitable legislation upon which to build the modern approach to this difficult problem.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate has not taken the opportunity of making a wise and gracious speech in support of his own Motion. He should not have forgone that opportunity merely in order to make an attack on me. I am sad about his disappointment and I quite understand how frustrated he must feel. However, he must be a realist. Those who introduce into your Lordships' House Private Member's Bills which are full of difficulty, controversy and contention, cannot expect those Bills to have a smooth passage no matter how simple they may appear to be on the surface.
All reasonable people will see that the Bill leaves many questions unanswered. If the right reverend Prelate wishes to know what some of the questions are, I ask him to study the guidelines on late abortion given by the British Medical Association to its members. He will then see the problem and that this Bill would be no solution to it.
I believe that we must persevere to try to reconcile what I would call the absolutist point of view on the one hand, and the humanist point of view on the other hand. Some reconciliation will have to be found if we are to have any stability in the work which is going on at present in hospitals, in perfectly good faith and in circumstances which those concerned feel fully justify what they do. I hope that the House will pass this Motion in a better spirit than that in which it has been introduced and with a resolve to do our best in the Select Committee.
I believe that the Government have been extremely maladroit about the Bill. We had a shocking performance from the Front Bench opposite at the end of the debate. The whole of the debate went on with the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, sitting on a brief which he was going to plunge upon the House right at the end of the debate. That was unfair to us and if there is any procedure committee to look into that matter it should study the need for the House to be more fully acquainted at an earlier stage in a debate and not be left in ignorance right to the end and then be faced with an entirely new situation.
However, I have no ill feelings about this matter. I have done a great deal in this field over many years in the hope of saving a great many people a lot of misery through the operation of the existing law. I hope that we can accept the right reverend Prelate's Motion, understand his frame of mind, forgive him for making me the scapegoat of his discontent and get on with the business of the Select Committee. He may feel that up to this point he has achieved a considerable amount of progress. There is no need for him to be gloomy and disappointed about the matter. Attention has been focused on this difficult problem and he has been instrumental in that. It is now in the hands of the wise council of your Lordships' House. All that is an achievement; it is something that has never before been accomplished in Parliament. We are possibly on the way to solving something which needs to be solved in a conciliatory and common-sense way.
I therefore warmly support the right reverend Prelate's Motion. I hope that he will feel, after the
714
Select Committee commences its work, that his achievement has not been lost and his endeavour has not been entirely in vain.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as a contribution to emollience, let me say that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I are a rather eccentric pair of sparring partners. We can each tear strips off one another at Second Reading and then collaborate harmoniously in a Select Committee.
The noble Lord referred to my laboratory animals protection Bill and the Select Committee to which it was referred. I should tell your Lordships that it was on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that I moved its reference to a Select Committee, and I was immensely grateful for that piece of good advice.
Looking back to the Second Reading debate, statistics were being flung across the Floor of the House from different lobbies. All were in disagreement with one another and all required very close critical analysis. The task of doing that is quite beyond a Committee of the Whole House. I believe that the Bill is one that should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.
I remind your Lordships that, having set up a Select Committee, we shall have an expert adviser probably on the embryological and gynaecological aspects and another expert adviser on the legal aspects and the draftsmanship. We shall be able to invite the public to give evidence and although one member of the public will, alas, no longer be the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, he will still be the right reverend Hugh Montefiore. I am perfectly certain that he will be one of the witnesses asked to give evidence.
I support the Motion and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships' House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word about the Motion. The right reverend Prelate said that he moved the Motion with deep feeling and a heavy heart. I should like to say that I support the Motion with deep feeling and a sigh of relief. I say "a sigh of relief" because this is the very course which I recommended during Second Reading. I do not often quote my own words, but at col. 1427 of Hansard on 28th January this year, I said that if the abortion settlement of 1967 was to be disturbed:
"nothing should be done without careful consideration by a committee. I am perhaps biased but I should prefer a parliamentary committee".
That is exactly what is being proposed by virtue of the right reverend Prelate's Motion and with the good offices of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to whom we should all be extremely grateful that this happy outcome has been arrived at. While talking about the Select Committee, I should like to mention to the right reverend Prelate that although unhappily he ceases to be a Member of your Lordships' House on his retirement in April, he will most certainly be able to give evidence before the Select Committee, if he so chooses. I think he was under a slight misapprehension when in his opening speech he said that he thought he should not be able to do even that.

715
I should like to say that this is not being referred to a Select Committee for what the right reverend Prelate rather bitterly called "parliamentary convenience". It is not for that reason. It is for the reasons referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I hope I do not embarrass the noble Earl by agreeing with him. It is in a Select Committee that those who are for, against and neutral can come to talk in a civilised manner on a subject which is highly contentious. They can hear the expert evidence which is so necessary for that Committee to hear, notably from the medical and legal professions. For those reasons, I very much support the right reverend Prelate's Bill. Although I should like to have seen him returning "blow for blow" in a Committee of the Whole House, as the medieval prelates used to go into battle with a mace, we shall have to deny ourselves that pleasure. I am very happy to support his Motion.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I support the Motion which has been moved by the right reverend Prelate. In doing so, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the very good sense of his intervention in this matter. He is always emollient, and I hope more so than ever on this occasion.
The position is very clear. We have a highly controversial matter which could be dealt with by Standing Committee and Report procedure, almost inevitably late at night, and squeezed into what time can be made available for it. That is not the best way of handling a matter of this kind. The alternative is the Select Committee procedure which I should have hoped the right reverend Prelate would agree is more apt for discussion of a subject which has historical, moral and difficult legal and medical aspects upon which the House will wish to be advised by experts who are able to give authoritative views.
As my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has reminded the House, the Act which it is sought to amend has hardly ever in practice been used. I understand that in the past 30 years or so there has been no successful prosecution upon it. The Act has now stood on the statute book since 1929 and only now is the first attempt being made to alter it. In those circumstances, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not feel that those who have made the suggestion to which he is now acceding have been either unrealistic or unfair. Certainly, I am convinced that this is the best method of dealing with an extremely difficult subject.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Bill introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading on 28th January, is in itself a straightforward measure. It is short and simple in form; and the right reverend Prelate explained that it was designed solely to take account of scientific advances which have taken place since the 1929 Act was introduced, as recorded in the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. These advances apparently have the result that babies are capable of survival at a significantly lower gestational age than when the Act was passed. On that basis, as I indicated during the
716
debate on the Second Reading, the Government have accepted the case for the change to the law proposed in the right reverend Prelate's Bill, which would complement the action already taken to reduce the maximum gestational age for abortion to 24 weeks.
We recognise, however, that behind the findings in the Royal College's report and the simple provisions of the Bill there lie issues of greater complexity concerning the interaction of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, the Offences against the Person Act and the Abortion Act; and that the impact of the proposed change on the latter, in particular, is a matter upon which differing views are strongly and sincerely held. This was evident from the Second Reading debate. Accordingly, the Government agree that it would be wise for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee, as moved by the right reverend Prelate, so that there can be full examination and discussion of the issues.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I have listened with close attention to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have appreciated the moderation with which they have spoken. When I informed your Lordships' House about the consequences of continuing with the Bill, I was only reporting to the House the advice which I had received, and I phrased my words in that form. If anything good can come from this Motion, no one will be more delighted than I.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee accordingly.

Co-existence in Plural Societies: Report
7.48 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have studied Report No. 72 from the Minority Rights Group Co-Existence in Some Plural European Societies and whether they find it a helpful contribution to dialogue and co-existence within Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question concerns co-existence. Co-existence is something which we all desire but need to strive for with all the effort and intelligence we can command. This is true whether in the East-West context, or in parts of Europe such as Northern Ireland or the Basque country, and even in some plural areas of contemporary England. My task tonight is to sketch in the background to the report which we are considering and to outline its content and indicate its main relevance to Northern Ireland. I should like to say how grateful I am to all noble Lords taking part in this debate. I am sure they will develop its themes and I look forward to the Government's reply.
The report came about at the request of the Churches Project on Human Rights and Responsibilities in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. The report was published in November, 1986. On the other hand the project itself expects to unveil its own longer text before the end of this year. I should like to thank the Minority Rights Group for reminding us that human rights problems are potentially soluble. It has done so by giving us

717
some significant examples of ethnically or religiously divided societies where civil wars once prevailed, or which plagued international statesmen and disrupted relationships between neighbouring states, but which now enjoy amicable inter-group relationships.
The report contains five case studies. The first two, by Professor Antony Alcock of the University of Ulster, survey particular local situations: the South Tyrol (or Alto Adige as the Italians call it) and the Swedes in Finland, with particular reference to the Aland Islands. The remaining three studies consider the recent political culture of Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. These three countries have had complex and chequered histories and have suffered from the interference of more powerful neighbours. Their societies, though divided by language, religion and ethnic factors, nevertheless show how coexistence can flourish when it is actively sought and is buttressed by appropriate institutions.
Let us look in greater detail at the first two cases that I have mentioned. After 1918, the South Tyrol was detached from Austria and given to Italy, despite the existence of an overwhelming majority of German-speaking inhabitants. The fascist government later set out to Italianise the province to the detriment of the German-speaking Tyrolese. In 1946 the Italian and Austrian leaders, De Gasperi and Gruber, reached an agreement to improve the situation. The ultimate future of the province however remained in doubt until 1955 when it was settled by the Austrian peace treaty. The area remained in Italy, but with a local constitution drawn up with very little local consultation and only nominal devolution of powers.
The discontent of the Tyrolese expressed itself in terrorism, which continued for 15 years until 1970. It was ended by a new Italian-Austrian package agreement of 1969 followed by an improved local constitution with effective safeguards for minorities, including both the Tyrolese minority in Italy and the Italian minority in the South Tyrol.
Turning now to Finland, we note that this is a new country dating from 1919. Swedes make up 6 or 7 per cent. of the population. The Swedish and Finnish languages enjoy equal rights and the resident Swedes look on themselves as co-founders of modern Finland. This helpful climate made for a relatively easy solution to the problem of the Aland Islands, with the help of the League of Nations. The islands lie between Finland and Sweden where the Baltic Sea leads into the Gulf of Bothnia. Their population is about 22,000 and is 95 per cent. Swedish.
What happened there was that in 1921 Sweden withdrew its claim to sovereignty, and at the same time Finland agreed to preserve the Swedish language, culture, traditions and character of the islands. The agreement was reflected in the local constitution of 1922 which was revised in 1951. This provides for a generous measure of local autonomy.
I suggest that Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands are only indirectly relevant to Northern Ireland. They provide examples of tolerance, compromise and pluralism. On the other hand, the South Tyrol and the Aland Islands are, I believe, directly relevant. Why should this be true of two such distant and remote corners of Europe? I shall attempt
718
to explain. The fact that satisfactory solutions were reached depended much on the wisdom of Austria and Sweden and on the enlightened co-operation of Italy and Finland. Austria accepted the international frontier as drawn after the First World War and confirmed in 1955. Sweden renounced its claim to sovereignty. In return, Italy and Finland provided acceptable local constitutions with autonomy and protection for minorities. In each case what Professor Alcock calls the "territorial destiny" of the area had to be settled before appropriate arrangements could be made for its inhabitants.
What, then, is the territorial destiny of Northern Ireland? In theory it is part of the United Kingdom, with or without devolution. Nevertheless, as Professor Bernard Crick has pointed out, the British citizenship of its inhabitants is conditional upon the continued and expressed desire of the Northern Ireland electorate to remain part of the United Kingdom. This conditional—one might almost say provisional—status came in with the Ireland Act 1949 and was repeated in the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. The uncertainty is reflected in Article 2 of the 1937 constitution of the Irish Republic, which baldly claims sovereignty over all 32 counties of the island of Ireland. This claim led directly to attempts in the Republic to have the Sunningdale Agreement ruled unconstitutional and to the mild degree of ambiguity present in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and in particular to the different headings of the official text which were widely commented on at the time.
The practical consequences of such uncertainty are, alas, that the fears and "siege mentality" of the Unionist community are greatly encouraged. For instance, it becomes possible for Unionists to refer to the Republic as a hostile alien state. Terrorists, on the other hand, are encouraged to think that eventually "our day will come", either through the weariness of some future British Government or perhaps through the emigration of many Unionists. The British and Irish guarantees, far from making Unionists intransigent, actually make them very insecure.
Here, I wish to welcome in the warmest possible way the discussion paper called Common Sense, published at the end of January by the Ulster Political Research Group. It is a real contribution to dialogue and coexistence. The document says:
"At present Northern Ireland exists and is a part of the United Kingdom. This situation may not be the wholehearted wish of everyone in the province, but must be recognised to be the wish of most".
That is an excellent starting point, and the authors of the document opt to remain within the United Kingdom instead of choosing independence, as was the case in their earlier pamphlet of 1979 entitled Beyond the Religious Divide. Unfortunately, the authors do not remove all uncertainty, because they allow for the possibility of a 66 per cent. majority changing the status of Northern Ireland and rewriting its proposed written constitution. In spite of this, they have contributed something really worthwhile to internal dialogue, and one can only urge the other parties to be equally constructive.
We can rejoice that all the major political parties in Britain and Ireland are committed to the principle of

719
consent within Northern Ireland and of agreement between the two sovereign governments. This was clear as long ago as the time of Sunningdale. It was reinforced by the communiqués issued in December 1980 after Mr. Haughey had met Mrs. Thatcher and again in November 1981 when Dr. FitzGerald met our Prime Minister. In the debate of 19th November 1985 in the Dail on the Anglo-Irish agreement Mr. Desmond, then Minister of Health, quoted Professor Kevin Boyle as follows:
"Irish Governments have always behaved internationally on the basis that our supposed claim to Northern Ireland was in reality an aspiration of the nation to be united and not an assertion that this State claimed Northern Ireland as part of its territory, which in some way was illegally occupied by a foreign state. Articles 2 and 3 concern the political theory that the Irish nation should be united some day. They do not represent a claim to the territory of Northern Ireland".
This view was expressed in practice in 1925 when Mr. Cosgrave and the Government of the Irish Free State recognised Northern Ireland in an agreement registered at the League of Nations. It was expressed again by the Fianna Fail Government which signed the 1973 Treaty of Accession to the European Communities and accepted without reservation that Britain signed on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, these finer points are not generally known to Unionists. They, like me, tend to think that constitutions should deal in facts and not in aspirations and political theories. We all have to accept that consent for change in the status of Northern Ireland does not now exist and is most unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. This, I suggest, is realism in Ireland just as much as in Britain.
I now ask Her Majesty's Government: do they agree that uncertainty exists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere? Do they accept that uncertainty is what destabilises things and prevents internal agreement? Will they work towards a known, definite, certain, unconditional territorial destiny for Northern Ireland within the recognised international frontier? Such a course will demand exceptional wisdom and forbearance from the people and Government of the Republic of Ireland. It will have to be a co-operative venture—I cannot emphaise that too much—but once clarity has been achieved, fears will subside and it will become possible to work out the appropriate measures to ensure local autonomy, both cultural and political, together with the necessary protection for minorities.
I plead in support paragraph 618 of the report on minorities made in 1977 to the United Nations by Signor Francesco Capotorti. He wrote:
"History shows that the minority problem can poison international relations. However, with the new standards set by the United Nations in the framework of human rights, minority groups can now play a positive part in international relations. When their rights are guaranteed and fully respected, minority groups can serve as a link between States … and thus help strengthen co-operation and peaceful relations between the countries concerned … The Special Rapporteur strongly believes that bilateral agreements dealng with minority rights, especially between neighbouring countries, would be extremely useful. It must be stressed, however, that co-operation with regard to the rights of memberss of minority groups should be based on mutual respect for the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the States concerned and non-interference in their internal affairs".
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down after his extremely interesting and well-researched speech, I wonder whether he can clarify one point. He said that in theory Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Would he not agree that in statute law dating back over many decades, Northern Ireland is also an unequivocal part of the United Kingdom?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I do not intend to enter into debate with the noble Lord. What I suggest with all the strength at my command is that there is an excessive degree of uncertainty about the future.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I believe that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss this more than interesting report.
Mr. Paul Sieghart, in the afterword to the report, claims that the report,
"shows clearly that all the classical divisions between majorities and minorities are potentially bridgeable."
It is his emphasis in the report on the word "all" that I am reflecting. This is in my view an optimistic opinion in relation to Northern Ireland. My conclusions, on the strength of my reading of the report and the case studies in it, are that the claim is not altogether proved. I will come to my reasons for giving the conclusions of the report less than total acceptance. I should like to start by saying how very valuable I found my reading of these five case studies, drawn as they are from Western European experience, demonstrating how people of different backgrounds—whether of religion, culture, language or nationality in the broadest sense—thrown together by accident of history, have learned to co-exist without the need to redraw national boundaries. There are lessons to be learned as to the way to bring harmony to disharmonious situations and as to pitfalls to be avoided.
I am firmly convinced that in a generalised way, provided more damage and distress will be caused by redrawing frontiers which history has handed down to us than by retaining the status quo, it is better for frontiers to remain undisturbed. Nevertheless, a wise majority in a plural society will make absolutely certain that the minority are afforded special consideration, rights and respect.
The report draws attention to five countries where the story seems to be, "Happy ending, so far". I propose to speak about the South Tyrol because in the history of the South Tyrol over the past 70 years I see the closest similarities to the Northern Irish predicament. It seems to me that this view is shared by the editors of the report and Professor Alcock, because the South Tyrol case study is placed first and dealt with at greatest length, and has the most boldly presented conclusions.
I consider that the most important element present both in the Northern Irish and the South Tyrol situation is the presence of the aspiration of the minority in question to be united with a motherland on the other side of a national frontier. This element, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is largely absent in

721
the cases of the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the Swedes of mainland Finland. It is present in the case of the Finnish Aland Islands alone, but here under 30,000 Swedes are involved, separated by some 40 miles of sea and nearly 200 years of history from their Swedish motherland, and there seem to be other good reasons why these Swedes should be satisfied with the status quo. Thus I see that the Aland Islands throw no great light on the present Northern Ireland problem.
The South Tyrol, in the words of Professor Alcock, contains one of the richest stores of information in the world on the issues involved in dealing with the problems of divided communities. The area contains a number of lessons for Northern Ireland, some very important, some less relevant. That is his claim, and it is with two of his lessons that I should like to deal.
The first lesson that Professor Alcock draws—and he refers to it as the "decisive lesson"—is that peaceful inter-community relations can only be carried out within a stable political framework. This seems uncontroversial enough, but when we examine more closely what he means in the Irish context it seems clear that by a "stable political framework" he implies that both Westminster and Dublin should guarantee the permanence of the present frontier between North and South; in particular, it suggests that Parliament's declaration to the Protestants that the present frontier will last unless and until the majority in Northern Ireland decide otherwise is seen as unfortunate and unsafe. This is certainly a view with which one may sympathise—even share—but it seems to me that he recommends not just the withdrawing of the declaration; he goes further. What he implies is that the word to be used to the minority is "never", and I do not believe that that is a word that we should be wise to utter.
Professor Alcock argues that, because the Catholic minority have these aspirations, power sharing is out of the question. He writes
"it is clearly absurd, if not dishonest, to share power within a political framework when it is the avowed intention of one of the parties sharing that power to do away with the framework within which that power is shared".
He also sympathises with those who justified discrimination in jobs and houses by asking why the benefits of the state should be extended to those who have wished for, and often sought, the abolition of that state.
I find this lesson and these conclusions not altogether helpful. The thrust of his argument it seems to me is directly against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My submission would be that the aspirations of the minority community, including aspirations to a different political destiny, must continue to be respected, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reiterate the Government's determination to stand by the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in this respect.
The other lesson that Professor Alcock draws, and to which I would refer, is his fourth. It is that those Irish nationalists are wrong who claim that Ireland should be united for the geographical reason that Ireland is an island and that its people, by a large majority, want unification. It could be that the argument is wrong but not, I would say, for the reasons that Professor Alcock gives.
722
His argument seems to be that at the Treaty of Versailles the frontiers of Europe were wrongly drawn in the case of the South Tyrol because the South Tyrol was seen as part of the Italian "island", being separated from Austria by mountains instead of the sea, sharing with Italy a Mediterranean flora and also forming part of a geographical entity with the Trentino, an Italian-speaking part of the Austro-Hungarian empire about whose incorporation in the Italian state no doubts are expressed.
He implies that the South Tyrol should have gone to Austria. I would not quarrel with that judgment. Nor do I need to refer to the other reasons for Italy's annexation of the South Tyrol. But he writes:
"The consequences of transferring territory on the basis of geography rather than democracy were cultural genocide, international tension, terrorism, economic sabotage, and more than six decades of inter-community tension which has not entirely died down".
He asks:
"In Italian terms, has it been worth it?"
My submission about all this is that the conclusions as to Ireland do not follow from the premises. The references to geography do not seem to me to answer the Irish nationalist argument. The references to democracy seem to me to beg numerous questions. I am not for one moment putting a case for a united Ireland, but there is no sense that I can see in which the unification of Ireland, either now or had it taken place at the time of partition, could be said to be on all fours with the incorporation of Bolzano into Italy. I see no sense in which the Irish can be said to have been saved by partition from the troubles which beset the inhabitants of Bolzano.
The principal point to be made against Professor Alcock's analysis at this point, it seems to me, is the simple one that the German-speaking minority were a local numerical majority in Bolzano, so that it was possible to establish local autonomy for them. In the case of the United Kingdom the minority with whom we are concerned are, within their own local area, a numerical minority. They do not have the possibilities which were open to the German-speaking inhabitants of Bolzano.
What seems to me to be the lesson to be drawn from the history of Bolzano and of the other case studies is that the Irish question does not fit neatly into any of these moulds. In my view the present political settlement and the state of affairs in Northern Ireland are inherently more than unstable. The old remedies, canvassed at length in this report, are good, but they are not sufficient. New and radical constitutional openings have to be sought, and in the Anglo-Irish Agreement we have one such new opening.
Those within the Province who oppose the agreement—and I know how many they are and how sincerely they do so—must realise that they dig their own graves by distancing themselves from us in the way that they do. What they are now doing is insisting that they too are a minority within the United Kingdom. I believe it to be plain that a situation where the Northern Irish Catholics are a local minority within a Protestant population who are determined themselves to be a minority within the United Kingdom is too inherently unstable to survive. I shall

723
be very interested to hear the views of my noble friend the Minister on this report.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising this matter; first because I think that it is good that he has given a chance for your Lordships' House to discuss these reports, and, secondly, because I am an ex-chairman of a minority rights group, and I am grateful to him for the publicity he has given to them. I should like to emphasise that this debate, as I understand it, is not about Northern Ireland but about the possible relevance of certain reports about other minorities in Europe to the situation in Ireland. If it were about Northern Ireland, I would hardly dare to intervene because I do not claim to be any expert on that matter.
It seems to me that there are two general points to be made about these reports. The first is that each minority situation differs from the other, and there is very little to be gained by studying the situation in the Aland Islands if you are dealing with Northern Ireland. Secondly, the reports leave out of account the growth of terrorism. We now have terrorism all over Europe which has, so to speak, latched on to minority problems, but which in many regards is simply an expression of thuggism which has taken up minorities while, really, it wishes to destroy any form of law and order whatever, and is not particularly interested in their grievance.
I should also like to say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine; a man of great wisdom, as one would expect having known his father, with whom I spent at least two very enjoyable weeks going around the southern hemisphere. I agreed with a great deal of what he said.
The only report which seems to me to have direct relevance to Northern Ireland is the one on the Tyrol. The lessons I draw from that are, first, that one should, if possible, avoid getting into these situations. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, the situation after the 1918 war was quite indefensible by any principles which were supposed to govern the peace.
I do not want to pursue this matter, but there is a slight danger that you may get into difficulties in Scotland. The Labour Party has had an overwhelming majority in Scotland for some time and looks like increasing it. Unless some notice is taken of this in the general government of the British Isles, I can conceive of a situation in which there may be difficulties.
However, I pass from that to my second point, which is in relation to the Tyrol. It is made clear that an acceptable solution was only found when the parties accepted that the future was settled; that it was going to remain a part of Italy. In Northern Ireland—I speak very much subject to correction by leading experts such as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—it seems to me that there is still ambiguity about the future.
It is said that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until any plebiscite or referendum decides that it might go to Ireland. So long as there is this slight uncertainty, then of course the more violent elements have a reason for continuing. On the
724
other hand, we have the southern Ireland constitution which still claims Northern Ireland as part of its domain.
I do not say that this is right, and I have crept very delicately, I may say. But the right lesson apparently to be drawn from the Tyrol is that the British should say quite firmly that Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom, and a whole part; that it is going to elect Members to Parliament commensurate with its rights; and that it is on a par with any other part of the United Kingdom.
Once that is done, you begin to make special provision for the rights of minorities. You follow up the Anglo-Irish Agreement on consultation, which I regard as important, and possibly you have plebiscites in some of the border areas and allow those wishing to go to the Free State to go to the Free State if they vote that way. But there is no more talk of further plebiscites deciding whether it shall remain part of the United Kingdom, and, if possible, we should dissuade the southern Irish from claiming it as part of their domain.
I am sure that this is unacceptable and I do not put it forward from that point of view. But the lesson of these reports is that so long as the parties concerned, the Austrians and the Italians, allowed for some possibility of the situation in the South Tyrol altering, so long terrorism and unrest continued. But once it was accepted that it would remain part of Italy, then it was possible to devise all sorts of power sharing and all sorts of protection for the rights of minorities, and the situation was accepted. I do not know whether that could happen in Ireland, but it seems to me to be the conclusion of these reports in so far as they have any relevance to Northern Ireland.
We appear to have tried devolution which I supported. I supported the Prior recommendations for Northern Ireland, but they do not appear to have worked. Therefore, I am coming round to the belief that, rather like Solomon's judgment, something rather fiercer must be said. So far as I can see, the only thing that can be said, again reverting to the Tyrol, is that it should be a part, a whole part, a normal part of the United Kingdom. Then we can get round to making suitable arrangements for the minorities.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in all the years that I have been a Member of either House, I have always been struck by how very far, in debating or taking decisions on Ireland, either the Republic of Ireland, the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland, from reality we always seem to be. I am not too sure how to explain this, but I think it takes one to be Irish, to live in Northern Ireland, to represent a Northern Irish constituency or to have been born and reared in the Irish Republic before one can feel all the emotions attached to the problems of the relationship between Britain and Ireland.
There are always the polite circumstances in which one congratulates the proposer of whatever the subject is. I have read each and every report that has been promulgated by the Minority Rights Group. But, as has been said in different ways by the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Grimond, there is no way of

725
comparing the Irish situation with what pertains in Sweden, in Belgium, in France, in Italy and the South Tyrol. They are all part of the one land mass of Europe. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are part of the one land mass that is the island of Ireland. Those other disputes that have taken place over many centuries are not about the constitutional issue of the existence of the state. They may be religious disputes or they may be disputes about ethnic cultures or many other factors, but there is no way that the people of Belgium want to become part of France or the people of France want to become part of Spain. We have already seen many difficulties in relation to the Common Market negotiations or to the people of the South Tyrol. None of those disputes is about changing the constitutional position of the country in which it began. I have read all those reports. In fact at the beginning of all the reports issued by the Minority Rights Group there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. The authors go through all 30 of the articles. The last, Article 30, states:
"Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.".
The other 29 articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in Northern Ireland all contradicted by Article 30, because in the state of Northern Ireland as it is presently governed by the British Government, the denial of jury rights, the institution of Diplock Courts, the existence of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the existence of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act all contravene Article 30 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
But when we talk about individuals, any person or group, then we have to think of the paramilitary organisations, both those on the so-called Irish Nationalist side and those on the so-called Loyalist side. These people do not only infringe human rights, but they take away the most basic of all human rights; they take away the life of the individual who is opposed to their particular creed. If they do not take away his life, they take away his limbs. All the atrocities committed in Northern Ireland are in total contradiction of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in introducing this discussion tonight asked us to consider what has happened in Spain, Germany and France to see whether in some way what has happened there could be made applicable to Northern Ireland. I say to him with the greatest respect that this cannot be. I have already referred to all those other disputes which have taken place on the great land mass of Europe. Ireland is an island. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, a few moments ago saying that the minority in Northern Ireland refused to accept certain provisions for the state that were set out by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
In Northern Ireland we have two minorities: we have the double minority syndrome. In Northern Ireland we have the Unionist majority within the context of the Six Counties who would become a
726
minority in the context of a united Ireland. We have the minority within the context of Northern Ireland who would form part of the majority in a united Ireland. Thus there is a terrible conflict of the irresistible force and the immovable object. Where does one begin to apply the arguments we have heard advanced here tonight? The one main conflict in Northern Ireland is not about speaking Irish, it is not about singing Eireann songs, it is not about whether one is a Catholic and attends Mass on a Sunday or about being a Protestant and going to some form of Protestant form of worship in Northern Ireland. The basic conflict in the context of Northern Ireland is: do you accept the validity of this state? Do you accept the constitutional position that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that the Republic of Ireland is a foreign country?
So we come to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe that that agreement has been promulgated with the best of intentions to allow the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland to live under their basic human rights and freedoms and to apply the same principle to the majority in Northern Ireland. But then you come to the conflict. I have lived there and I do not view the Northern Ireland situation with the same tranquillity. I know the passions that are there in Northern Ireland, where the Protestants, ethnic, Unionist, "Plantation" —and I hope that word is not taken as being offensive—say, "We are part of Britain and part of the United Kingdom", and where 40 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland, the Catholic minority, say, "This is our island; you were brought here in the 16th and 17th centuries and therefore you have no right to dictate the future progress of this country."
It may be that if you had a 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. minority in Northern Ireland they would be very easy to deal with. You could afford to be generous because that minority would never be any real danger to the majority. But where you have a 35 per cent. or 40 per cent. minority all the seeds of conflict are sown. It is totally unreal to ask, in this House or in any other place, that the normal minority human rights and social justice provisions be set into such a conflict.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has been motivated by the very highest ideals. I have known him for many years—indeed, long before I became a Member of your Lordships' House—but what he is asking, and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has been asking, is that the minority in Northern Ireland of 35 to 40 per cent. accept the boundaries of the present state. That is what the noble Lords are asking.
Given Irish history and Irish emotionalism, that is something which they will never do. Even though the Anglo-Irish Agreement is allegedly down the road, the minority of the people of Northern Ireland will not accept it. They may for public relations reasons appear to accept it, but I am one of the minority in Northern Ireland. There is no way that the 40 per cent. Irish nationalist minority in Northern Ireland are ever going to say, "Yes, we have given up our allegiance. We are prepared to accept the boundaries. We shall not continue to yearn for or strive for a united Ireland". Once they take that attitude—which is a legitimate one, particularly in an atmosphere such as there is—it

727
immediately brings a response from the Northern Ireland Unionist, who is totally opposed to that belief in the minority community.
Here we have the conflict between the two communities. The Northern Ireland majority are not going to agree to any concessions which will make it easier for their political opponents to take them out of the Northern Ireland state. The political and religious minority in Northern Ireland are not going to agree to any solutions that may be brought forward which will make them a permanent part of the partitioned state of the six counties of Northern Ireland.
As I say, here we have the conflict. It is not about speaking Irish, Dutch, Walloon or French. It is about the existence or the non-existence of the Northern Ireland state. What this House is trying to do—and we have been trying to do it for many years, if not indeed for many centuries—is to establish the relationships between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I should like to think, but I am realist enough not to believe, that some of the ideals which have been promulgated tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, could be realised by seeing what has been happening in other ethnic or religiously divided communities and applying them to Northern Ireland. But I have lived most of my life in Belfast, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has lived in a rarefied atmosphere very far removed from all the emotions which exist in Northern Ireland. I should love to think that I could go to Belfast next week and tell them that the UDA document which was issued last week and which is an advance is worthy of discussion. I am the first to recognise that any political discussion or assessment in Northern Ireland, from whichever community it may emerge, is worthy of discussion. I quite agree on that; but I would be less than optimistic of its eventual success.
This debate is certainly worth while and I understand the reasons which have motivated the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. But the situation in Ireland and in Northern Ireland is totally unlike the document which has formed the basis of this discussion, Report No. 72. As I say, I have read these reports over many, many years. I only wish that all those people who are so honestly and ideologically motivated and who have produced the reports could give me hope of just a little step ahead to solve the problem of Northern Ireland. It is terribly sad to say it, but the document which has prompted this debate is totally irrelevant to Northern Ireland.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, at the outset I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for having given us the opportunity for this debate tonight. I am also sure that the Minority Rights Group and the authors of Report No. 72 are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the debate.
Those of us who regularly address ourselves to debates on Northern Ireland affairs know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has always broadened the basis of our discussions of Northern Ireland affairs with his own personal view of the problems and the way they can be overcome, and with his breadth of
728
vision. His speech tonight has been in line with the contributions for which he is noted in your Lordships' House.
The report is not a sensational document: it was never meant to be a sensational document. Throughout its 18 pages it is informative, sometimes challenging and sometimes awkward. But I believe that it is illuminating in some of its paragraphs for those who seek to bridge the divisions within divided communities.
We are reminded that there are divided communities in other parts of Europe which manage to live side by side in peace. The South Tyrol, which is 66 per cent. German speaking and 30 per cent. Italian speaking, has been given very full treatment in the report; and a number of noble Lords have concentrated on the lessons to be learned from the South Tyrol.
Then the authors have dealt with the position of the Swedish-speaking community in Finland and on the Aland Islands, but admittedly 95 per cent. of the community on the Finnish Aland Islands are Swedes and they really constitute one community. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that that particular lesson is not very relevant in the context of Northern Ireland. The authors have gone on to trace the history of the linguistic situation in Belgium and the position of the minorities in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Again, I did not find the lessons from those communities very relevant to Northern Ireland which is the problem on our doorstep.
From the case material, primarily from South Tyrol and to a lesser extent from the Swedish community in Finland, the authors have drawn about half-a-dozen specific lessons of varying degrees of relevance to Northern Ireland, and I propose to touch briefly upon the three main lessons. The first is the need for certainty about a territory's destiny. This appears to be the central lesson from the experience of South Tyrol and the authors come back to this lesson on more than one occasion in their report. It has been heavily underlined tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, Lord Coleraine and Lord Grimond.
But if this conclusion is true, then it seems to leave us with a problem because the territorial destiny of Northern Ireland is surrounded by uncertainty or—to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—ambiguity. If the lesson is valid, are we therefore to conclude that the absence of certainty of territorial destiny will defeat any substantial movement towards bridging the division in Northern Ireland, or do we say that this is not proven? Or can one compensate in another way for the absence of certainty of territorial destiny?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that our hope must be that, given the co-operation and co-ordination between London and Dublin which was promised in the Hillsborough agreement—and that is the co-operation and co-ordination which was totally lacking for almost 65 years after 1921—and given other initiatives, time may modify the central lesson which the authors are drawing from South Tyrol.
The second main lesson is the necessity for a method of decision-making which ensures that there are built-in safeguards for the minority, either by giving the

729
minority a veto or by ensuring that a majority decision which discriminates against the minority is subject to judicial review. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was rather pessimistic about the possibility of building such a structure in Northern Ireland. But I doubt whether this lesson can be bettered at this stage particularly when it is accepted by people in Northern Ireland that the Province cannot go back to the pre-November 1985 position. There must be a reasonable alternative. That is the clear impression that I formed when I was in Northern Ireland last September.
There is a third main conclusion if we accept the core of this report. That is the message that human rights problems are potentially soluble and that it is not a waste of time or of resources to seek to tackle them and to build bridges. It seems to me that that is the message which is worthy of repetition in your Lordships' House. So this lesson gives us hope that the immense difficulties of Northern Ireland—and we acknowledge that they are immense—will be overcome before we are worn out. And sometimes I detect a note of despair in some speeches in your Lordships' House.
It is right to remind ourselves that in the concluding paragraphs the authors of the report acknowledge that the divided community of Northern Ireland, like the divided community of the Basque country, is different from the communities which they have studied in this report. Therefore, we cannot be expected to draw a simple comparison with the divided communities in North-West and Central Europe. The problems of Northern Ireland are more complex and are larger. In Northern Ireland we have a major conflict of nationalities amalgamated with a passionate conflict of religions. My noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease always remind us that the bleeding wounds of this conflict have been visible for centuries.
I was not surprised to read that the historian Liam de Paor concludes in his book The Peoples of Ireland published last year that by 1922 Northern Ireland had become—and these are his words—"an impossibly divided community." We cannot ignore that conclusion. So, never ignoring this historical dimension and never overlooking a certain fatalism about the quality of mind of some of the leaders of both traditions, particularly the religious leaders of both traditions—a fatalism which reminds me sometimes of the words of Patrick Pearse—there yet emerges within Northern Ireland itself, if only occasionally, a hopeful message and an illuminating flash of light as from a lighthouse.
That beings me to the constructive proposal published by the Ulster Defence Association on 29th January last, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others. In essence, the statement calls for discussions, for a constitutional conference, with a view to establishing a devolved Northern Ireland Assembly with guarantees for the minority community and a Bill of Rights. This is an advancement and it is very much in line, as we have seen, with one of the major lessons identified in the report.
We must all think it significant that this proposal has been advanced by the UDA, which has hundreds of members serving life sentences for violence in the Province, and which has been so consistently hostile
730
towards the minority Catholic nationalist community. So the proposal, if the UDA can deliver it, could he a span in the bridge which has to be built between the two communities in Northern Ireland leading to co-operation, reconciliation, peace and justice.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister has to say to the House in response to the report. How do the Government approach the lesson of territorial destiny? Do they believe that, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, we can compensate for the absence of certainty of territorial destiny? Many of us, including very many outside your Lordships' House, will be interested in the Government's response to the UDA initiative. Can the Minister give an indication of government thinking? What conditions must be satisfied before the Government consider that a proposal offers a real way forward? Indeed, do the Government have confidence in the ability and skill of the UDA to undertake the major task of gaining popular support for the proposal?
Finally, I should again like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the short debate tonight and also to thank the Minority Rights Group for its interest in the problems of dividend communities.
8.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I believe that your Lordships will agree with me that we should first offer our congratulations and our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who in a very thoughtful and fascinating speech has given us yet another opportunity to consider some of the vast number of problems of Northern Ireland. I shall try to answer as many as I can of the points raised by the noble Lord. I think I may call the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a serious student of those problems, as are other noble Lords. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Coleraine produced a thoughtful study of some aspects of the report. However, even with these serious studies of the subject, a mere Scot like myself could only attempt to answer some of the questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, touched upon the history of these problems. They go back much more than a mere 70 years, much further back than the problems of the South Tyrol and the Aland Islands. As every nationalist says in Northern Ireland, the problems go back 700 years. And yet, it is a mere 15 or 16 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed at Hillsborough.
If I may return to the very interesting debate that we have had this evening, we of course started from the position of the international context which is set out in the report of the Minority Rights Group. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords who have spoken this evening have reminded us, however intractable the problems facing the people of Northern Ireland may be, they are not wholly unique. For my own part, I read with the greatest interest the report of the Minority Rights Group. It is a praiseworthy attempt to draw a number of international parallels to the situation in Northern Ireland. I think your Lordships would agree that the report is a serious study and that the remarks made this evening also fall into

731
that category. Any serious study which is directed at helping to bring about peace and stability in Northern Ireland is most warmly welcomed by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, admirably summarised the main elements and indeed the conclusion of the report. I agree with him that the examples of the South Tyrol and the Aland Islands are the most interesting in the context of Northern Ireland. Of course there were other lessons to be learnt from the other three examples in the report. I found the report's discussion of all these problems most interesting. I give an undertaking to your Lordships that I shall be studying the bibliography. I am pleased that Professor Alcock will not be too far from my place of work and I may be able to pursue further studies.
Perhaps I may make two points at the outset this evening. The first is that in both the South Tyrol and the Aland Islands the problems seem to have involved linguistic minorities. As as been pointed out by your Lordships and stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, many members of the nationalist minority community regard the Irish language as an important part of their cultural heritage. I stress that the Government recognise that worthy aspiration.
At the same time I think your Lordships will agree that almost everyone in Northern Ireland speaks English as their mother tongue. If we then go back to the elaborate arrangements which have been made and which exist in the South Tyrol for ensuring harmony between language groups (and possibly also cultural groups), these arrangements may not be necessary in this respect for Northern Ireland. The whole dimension of the problem as it applies throughout the history of what was the South Tyrol does not exist to the same extent in Northern Ireland. It may exist in some aspects but it does not exist in others, which may be the most important aspects.
The second point I wish to make at the outset so far as the report is concerned is that the positions of the South Tyrol and the Aland Islands, as part of Italy and Finland respectively, are guaranteed by international treaty. Your Lordships will see that on pages 5 and 9 in the report. The report argues, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, stressed in his remarks, that certainty about the future exists in these two areas which does not exist in Northern Ireland. I think that point was also the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is concerned, I may begin to diverge a little from his remarks this evening. The whole approach of the Government to the vast range of problems of Northern Ireland rests on the principle that Northern Ireland should not leave the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. That point has been—I shall not say hammered home. It has been reiterated in forceful style by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The principle is also written into Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which says that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish for no change in the status of Northern Ireland. Unless the people of Northern Ireland are about to change their minds—and I see no sign of that—then there is no uncertainty and none is likely to arise.
732
So far as the report is concerned, I believe that we also have to recognise that Northern Ireland's problems are very much its own problems. There are many problems and the history and situation of Northern Ireland is unique. Comparisons with other international situations, as we have in the report, are most interesting and illuminating. They give great grounds for education. However, I do not think they suggest any one, two, three or four blueprints for solutions. So far as the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, are concerned, I believe that that was the main thrust of his dissertation on the report this evening.
As regards Northern Ireland, let us not forget that few societies have been divided for so long, so deeply or on such fundamental principles. I do not think that any other community mentioned in the report before us has been subjected to a terrorist campaign of such intensity as that which the people of Northern Ireland have endured for many years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, nodding. We admire his courage and the courage of everyone in Northern Ireland who attempts to lead what we would see as a normal life in the situation in which they find themselves. This point was clearly brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and I took his remarks on board so far as that point was concerned.
Let us not forget that campaign of terror and the climate of hatred in Northern Ireland which the terrorist campaign has spawned. These matters go a long way towards making the underlying problems of Northern Ireland much more difficult and ensuring that they will take a much longer time to tackle. Terrorism and the lack of political consensus combine to worsen the economic situation.
The economic situation was clearly illustrated in Professor Alcock's report as far as the South Tyrol is concerned. Economic difficulties feed terrorism and they go on to feed political instability. It is the interlocking of Northern Ireland's political, security and economic problems, which though separate are related, that makes them so difficult to alleviate. They distinguish Northern Ireland from the five examples covered in the report.
The solution to the problems of Northern Ireland lie with the people of Northern Ireland themselves. An improvement in their situation depends crucially upon their own efforts; the efforts of every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland and in particular the efforts of their elected politicians. If the people of Northern Ireland are to solve their problems they need the help and the sympathy of this Parliament and of the United Kingdom Government at every stage.
The report which we are debating tonight is a helpful reminder that the people of Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have all found broadly satisfactory solutions to the problems of their divided or fragmented societies. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, these problems are soluble given good will and a readiness to accommodate others—though whether those two qualities are available in sufficient quantities in Northern Ireland is a matter for debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has given his opinion and my noble friend Lord Coleraine will also have his thoughts on that.

733
The Government's objective in Northern Ireland remains the creation of a peaceful and stable society in which individuals may live free from violence and the creation of institutions with which members of both the majority and minority communities can identify. That sounds a mere aspiration, but it is one that this Government seek most warmly. Of course we hope that the people as a whole will have confidence in and support the arrangements by which they are governed.
I should like to touch briefly on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We believe that the agreement is an essential part of that reconciliation which will come about in Northern Ireland but only when the two sides of the community achieve sufficient mutual respect and make sufficient mutual accommodation to participate a little more creatively in the public life of Northern Ireland. We hope that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides a mechanism for that to come about. The aim of the agreement is to recognise the rights and identity of all the people of Northern Ireland and to respect the aspirations of each community.
It is worth stressing to both communities in Northern Ireland that the agreement offers the commitment in Article 1 that the status of Northern Ireland will not change without the consent of a majority of people there. It is also worth stressing that the Irish Government have not before in their history given such an undertaking in what is an internationally binding document. I venture to suggest that the reassurances which they have given establish a new degree of certainty about the future of Northern Ireland. I say a degree of certainty because nothing can be cast-iron or 100 per cent., certainly with the history of Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will be aware of the fairly brief history of the agreement. Of course it has met with a hostile reaction in many quarters in Northern Ireland. We deeply regret that so far the Unionist parties have chosen not to take up the opportunities for discussions and forward movement which are open to them. I again stress that the Government have repeatedly made clear that they are willing to participate in a round-table conference about devolution. I think the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was hinting at devolution, but as a Scot I noted what he said about my own homeland. I do not attempt to bring in any similarity between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear that his door is open to the Unionist parties on any matter which is of concern to them. We have added that we would be prepared to operate the agreement sensitively in the interest of encouraging such talks. I think your Lordships will agree that it is a matter of the greatest regret that the Unionist parties have chosen not to take up those offers.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—in fact most noble Lords—mentioned the UDA document entitled Common Sense. That is of course a weird but most interesting title emanating from such a source, but we live in hope. The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Prys-Davies, made reference to that document. The Government's policy is to seek a form of devolved government in Northern Ireland which will be widely
734
acceptable in the sense of being acceptable to both communities.
In so far as this solution advocates the creation of a form of devolved administration operating on a consensus basis, the document Common Sense is consistent with the Government's policy, but I note two elements. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has pointed out that these proposals are irrelevant; and the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party said that they amount to an enforced power-sharing and that they are unacceptable to him. To paraphrase the words of one well known lady, "They would, wouldn't they?". Certainly we find that this document is of considerable interest.
I probably could cover a fairly wide spectrum of the problems of Northern Ireland but your Lordships would not wish me to go too wide this evening. I shall try to restrict my remarks to answering the questions raised. I hope I have covered some of the main problems.
I turn briefly to the comments of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. It is interesting that he found a note of optimism in the report. I was interested in his thoughts on the boundary of Northern Ireland in relation to that of the South Tyrol. The boundary of the South Tyrol—which was in Austria and is now in Italy—had been drawn, I think, in 1918 and eventually seems to have been settled in 1969 or even 1972. However, as far as the South Tyrol is concerned I agree—and there seems to be a firm guarantee—that the boundaries are indeed settled by international agreement.
I heard my noble friend mention the Treaty of Versailles and I was thinking of the historical point. From my elementary studies of this subject some years ago, I seem to remember that there was a Treaty of St. Germain but I think that it was the Versailles Conference; that is what they call it. No doubt we can discuss that at a later stage. So far as I am aware, the treaty of St. Germain dealt with arrangements between Austria and the allies, but I certainly know that the report points out that the Versailles Conference dealt with the setting up of what is now the South Tyrol.
We are very grateful for the personal interest of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Indeed, his name appears en grand titre in front of the MRG report. We are very grateful that he has come here this evening. Certainly in your Lordships' House nobody need fear giving vent to his thoughts on the problems of Northern Ireland, because this House particularly values intelligent discussion, if I may put it that way, especially such as that which we have had this evening. Above all we value the remarks that have been made on the subject this evening by the noble Lord. As brought out in the report, he stressed that each minority is different, and he emphasised the problem of terrorism. I enjoyed what I might call his "Irishism". When we look at the history of Ireland and the present situation perhaps we should not start from that point. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is a fact and we must try to deal with it as best we can. I reiterate once again that Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement emphasises that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and of course that rests on the principle of consent.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that there was no sensationalism in the documents and the

735
report before us, and that indeed they were illuminating. I found them very much so. The noble Lord covered various points respecting the South Tyrol, including the certainty about the border, and giving the minority a guaranteed part in the decision-making. I shall not continue speaking for too long this evening about how this will apply in Northern Ireland. However, I take on board the fact that the problems of human rights are potentially soluble. I give him that guarantee. We also agree with the noble Lord, and are continually attempting to see what can be done to take the rougher edges off the problems of human rights in Northern Ireland which were so clearly described by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
As regards Northern Ireland and the report that is before us, political stability is essential to the future of Northern Ireland because it helps both to isolate the terrorists and to further economic development. In turn, these two processes will reinforce one another. Political stability can be brought about only by a form of government for Northern Ireland that is widely acceptable there. Any constitutional devices that are designed to secure the interests of one or another group within that devolved government will be of interest in so far as they may assist the parties to reach agreement or indeed agree on any arrangements which may be widely acceptable.
The report of the Minority Rights Group suggests a number of such constitutional devices and how they might apply to Northern Ireland. They are all of great interest and we shall certainly study them. I hope that they will also be studied carefully by the parties in Northern Ireland to see to what extent, if at all, they might meet the needs of those parties.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to ask the Minister a question in relation to the UDA document. However, I assure him at the outset that I have absolutely no contact with it, except for having had posted to me, as have others, its document labelled Common Sense. Do the Minister and the Government consider that this document is worthy of discussion? Will Ministers be prepared to discuss with representatives of the UDA?
Let me say at the outset that I have the greatest reservations about members of the UDA because of
736
their past history, but if the elected leaders—the Official Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and other elected leaders—are not taking part in discussions, do the Minister and the Government consider it an advance that an organisation in Northern Ireland that is allegedly claiming to represent many people there has put forward such views? Are the Government prepared to meet not only the UDA but others who appear to have constructive views on the solution of the Northern Ireland problem?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has asked me five supplementary questions. I shall try to be brief and say that we are interested in the Common Sense report. I do not think that the noble Lord would expect me to commit the Government to go any further than to take what I call a passive interest—not even an active interest. We shall acknowledge receipt of this document and that we have seen it—indeed it has been widely published—but nothing more. Certainly I shall not dabble in questions of the paramilitaries, the UDA or anything else.
The minority group report suggests a number of devices. The Government will take careful note of them. I repeat that in the last analysis those ideas are of value only so far as they enable the elected representatives of Northern Ireland (that should cover at least three of the questions asked by the noble Lord in his intervention) to reach agreement among themselves. The phrase "among themselves" is of particular relevance. They must agree a form of government which will be widely accepted in Northern Ireland. We want to bend our efforts towards that objective. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to do so with patience and, above all, determination.

Port of Fosdyke Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past nine o'clock.