Sitting of 26 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WEST GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to he read the Third time.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL ( By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To he read a Second time upon Thursday 5 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Unemployment Costs
    Mr. Rogersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to his answer of 29 January, Official Report, column 376, he will take steps to prepare estimates of the cost to the Exchequer of the current level of unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. MichaelCocks asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to his answer of 29 January, Official Report, column 376, he will take steps to prepare estimates of the costs to the Exchequer of the current level of unemployment in the south-west.
    Mr. Patchettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to his answer of 29 January, Official Report, column 376, he will take steps to prepare estimates of the cost to the Exchequer of the current level of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): I regret that such estimates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Rogers: Would it not be reasonably easy to calculate the cost of the 180,000 unemployed in Wales, especially as that figure has grown by at least 3,000 in the past month? When will the Chancellor take real steps to solve the unemployment in the valleys of Wales?
    Mr. MacGregor: The disproportionate cost of making regional calculations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman wants comes not from calculating unemployment benefit but in relation to supplementary and housing benefit.
    402
    The hon. Gentleman will know that with six years of steady growth in the economy, overcoming all the difficulties of the 1970s, the improvement in many of the basic industries in Wales and the attraction of new firms to Wales on a large scale, we are making considerable progress in turning the Welsh economy round on a basis that will ensure regular prosperity for the future.
    Mr. Cocks: The Minister referred to disproportionate cost, but has he considered the disproportionate cost of the tens of thousands of people who are on the dole in the south-west? Would it not put into perspective the Chancellor's possible concessions in tax relief if we had some idea of what it costs to keep all those people out of work?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have observed that since the 1983 election there have been 100,000 new additional jobs in the south-west, which shows that employment is increasing. In addition, considerable employment and training measures are being used in the south-west, involving 80,000 people. That leads to an average overall unemployment level of 9·7 per cent. I believe that the best prospects for the south-west lie in the continuation of the Government's financial and economic policies.
    Mr. Patchett: Is the Minister aware that more than 250,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the Yorkshire and Humberside region since 1979 as a result of the Government's policies? What is he prepared to do to reverse that trend?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is also aware that there have been 74,000 new jobs in Yorkshire and Humberside since 1983. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the survey which came out this morning from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It is one of the most optimistic recent surveys of industry in Yorkshire and Humberside and shows that things are moving in the right direction.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the rising number of jobs in Wales that are dependent on inward investment, what effect would the Labour party's policies in that regard have on future employment prospects?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure my hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that, just as Wales has been one of the major beneficiaries on inward investment, often in high-tech and high-growth industries for the future, so nothing is more likely to make those industries and investors think less of investing in the United Kingdom than the kinds of policies that we are beginning to see emerge from the Opposition.
    Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great problem associated with lumping these three questions together? The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) lumped the whole of the south-west together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that epitomises the problem, because the prosperity of Bristol drags up the apparant prosperity of the south-west? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department should consider the south-west as Devon and Cornwall, perhaps, which have a smaller population than Bristol, rather than lump them together so that, in economic terms, the best pulls up the worst?
    Mr. MacGregor: I take my hon. Friend's point, but he will realise that the question was not one that I tabled or

    403
    wished to see. He will also know that present and future improvements in infrastructure in his constituency are among the most important means of helping to ensure prosperity in his part of Devon.
    Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the substantial Government investment in South Humberside, which has three enterprise zones, developmeent area status and substantial assistance from Europe? Is he further aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen faster than in any other, bar five? Does that not demonstrate the Government's commitment to regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. Scunthorpe has undoubtedly benefited from designation as an enterprise zone. The much better targeting of regional development policies to concentrate on areas of greatest need has helped my hon. Friend's constituency considerably. It received more than £12 million in the earlier regional development scheme after June 1983, another £4·2 million in the latest development scheme and a further £4·8 million in regional selective assistance. Those sums have contributed substantially to the results that my hon. Friend has described.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the 74,000 jobs that he claims for Yorkshire and Humberside were not in manufacturing? Can he confirm that the unpublished Government report to which he is privy said that matters would get worse in South Yorkshire? Does he agree that relief can come only from economic expansion at home and overseas? Why did the Chancellor not seek a co-ordinated economic expansion when he had the opportunity at the Group of Five meeting last weekend?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that South Yorkshire, like many other parts of Europe, has experienced problems with the decline of heavy industries. That is one reason for the fall in manufacturing employment. I hope that he will read the Association of British Chambers of Commerce survey, published this morning, which shows that in Yorkshire and Humberside there are substantially better expectations for home orders and export orders and confidence in manufacturing industry generally.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment in Yorkshire and Humberside and Teesside could be vastly improved if the Government were to harmonise with the rest of the EEC and have light duties charged centrally so that we have fair competition? Does he agree that that would enable jobs which have been lost because of lack of harmonisation to come back to the north-east?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that that is not a matter for me, but I shall ensure that his question is passed on.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Chief Secretary will recall that in his first supplementary answer he made claims about the past six years, that in his second supplementary answer he made claims about the past three years and that in his third supplementary answer he made claims about the past four years. Does he not find it demeaning to spend so much of his time manipulating the figures in that way?
    Mr. MacGregor: Not in the slightest. I am not demeaning the figures—I am giving the figures. I have
    404
    given the employment figures since the June 1983 general election, when the electorate gave the Government a resounding vote of confidence in our previous policies.
    As for economic growth, between 1979 and 1981 we experienced a world recession and the difficulties of restructuring the British economy after the effects of the Labour Government's policies. The past six years have been the longest period of sustained, balanced growth for a long time. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be pleased about that.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Hunterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total revenue has been derived each year since 1979–80 from North sea oil.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): I shall arrange for the full figures to be printed in the Official Report. The figure for 1985–86 was 11 per cent. and that for the current year is expected to be about 4 per cent.
    Mr. Hunter: I believe that the figures will reveal that North sea oil has declined in relative importance in revenue terms, and also, by impliction, that there is a buoyancy in other areas of economic activity. Will my hon. Friend comment on that proposition?
    Mr. Stewart: It is undoubtedly the case that the decline in the oil industry following the reduction in the oil price has been substantially offset by the strength of the rest of the economy. One of the great achievements of the Government is that such a major reduction in the oil price has been taken in our stride and we have the strength of the economy that we see today.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that there will be no achievements from the Government, apart from the lifeline of the revenue from Scottish oil, and that the spin-off for Scotland has been minimal, bearing out the forecast that Scotland has been the only country which has had oil discovered in its territory and has ended up worse than it was before the oil was discovered? Will the Minister take into account the fact that unemployment is rising in Scotland when it is falling in England and that we have had nothing out of Scottish oil?
    Mr. Stewart: There will be a short-term effect on oil and oil-related industries in Scotland immediately after a change in the oil price of the scale that we have seen, but Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom which benefits from the reduction in overseas debt, from increased net assets overseas—now £80 billion plus—from the annual yield of more than £5 billion that that brings to the United Kingdom, and from the reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement, which has been one of the important facts in the strength of the British economy as a whole.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend recall that only a year or two ago people were asking what would happen when the oil ran out? Oil revenue has run right down, but Government revenues are more buoyant than ever. Is that not the clearest possible evidence of the strength of the non-oil economy?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may recall a phrase in the last Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about having lost half the oil

    405
    revenues in 25 weeks, not 25 years, as some people had been suggesting. In fact, since my right hon. Friend's Budget speech last year, the strength of the non-oil economy has exceeded expectations and bears out very strongly what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Does the Minister accept that, although there has been a reduction in oil revenue, it is still very substantial, and that most Labour Members would much rather that that revenue was spent on building up our infrastructure and on creating more manufacturing jobs than on paying out unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the benefits of the oil revenues to the balance of payments and to the Exchequer over the past few years have enabled a major restructuring of the British economy and that that is one of the things that has contributed so much to the present strength of the economy.
    Following are the figures:

    Annual figures for North sea revenues

    £ billion

    as percentage of total Consolidated Fund revenue

    1979–80

    2·3

    4

    1980–81

    3·7

    6

    1981–82

    6·5

    8

    1982–83

    7·8

    9

    1983–84

    8·8

    10

    1984–85

    12·0

    12

    1985–86

    11·4

    11

    1986–87 (Autumn Statement Forecast)

    4·4

    4

    1979–80 to 1986–87

    57·0

    8

    Share Ownership
    Mr. Formanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest information he has on the extent of employee share ownership in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The number of all-employee share schemes has increased from less than 30 in May 1979 to over 1,200 now. Under those schemes 1·5 million employees have acquired shares or options.
    Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the progress that is reflected in those figures and urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to go further in that direction. Does my hon. Friend accept that the time has perhaps come to consider carefully some form of time-limited tax relief to give a substantial boost to this particularly attractive form of democratic capitalism?
    Mr. Stewart: I note what my hon. Friend says. I shall not comment about the future, but on past performance the profit-sharing and savings-related share option schemes that are already in force have proved very successful and popular. Indeed, there is no let up in the flow of new proposals for them.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Stock-Exchange has recently produced information suggesting that 42 per cent. of individual shareholders are women? Since many of these will be married women whose tax position at the moment is unfair, as I think most people would accept, does not this welcome statistic emphasise the importance of the reform of personal taxation as outlined in the Green Paper?
    Mr. Stewart: I note my hon. Friend's comments. I am delighted to hear that such a high proportion of personal shareholders are women, but matters of that kind are not for now.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Alan Howarthasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Sedgemoreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had recently on the level of United Kingdom interest rates.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Bank base rates are currently 11 per cent.
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the very favourable configuration of public finances, upon which he is to be congratulated, is giving rise to much optimism about the future course of our interest rates. Does he agree that we now have an important opportunity to lower the Government's prospective borrowing requirement and that a prudent course of that sort, in contrast with the degrees of extravagance proposed by the various Opposition parties, would give the best prospect of fulfilling those hopes for lower interest rates in the long term?
    Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the state of the economy, which is indeed in a particularly sound condition, as is widely recognised by everybody, even including now—for the first time that I can recall—the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. As to the question of the public sector borrowing requirement, as my hon. Friend knows, it is an integral part of the medium-term financial strategy that the public sector borrowing requirement should be reduced—as it has been. That has clearly brought great benefits in its wake, just as there would be great disasters were the public sector borrowing requirement to be inflated in the way that all the Opposition parties wish it to be.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the Chancellor tell us the comparable rates of interest at present in Germany and in France, the two major countries which are fully within the European monetary system?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not at all clear that the difference between interest rates in this country and those in France and Germany is attributable to the fact that those two countries are in the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS and we are not. It is perfectly true that interest rates are higher in this country. That is well known. That is necessary at present in order to secure a steady downward pressure on inflation. Interest rates will be lowered only as and when it is safe to do so.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important factors for manufacturing industry is not so much a reduction in tax as a reduction in interest rates? Does he also agree that one of the most helpful things that could happen would be to reduce Government borrowing so that 2 per cent. could come off interest rates rather than 2p off income tax?
    Mr. Lawson: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be a further reduction in Government

    407
    borrowing. It is difficult, however, to draw the precise connection between a particular reduction in Government borrowing and a particular effect on the interest rate. It is far more complex than that. The level of public sector borrowing is one factor that determines the level of interest rates, but there are many others as well, as I have pointed out on a large number of occasions. As for British industry, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that British industry is exceedingly healthy. That is one of the reasons for the strong improvement in the Government's tax revenues, which are coming from increased profitability and increased corporation tax.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: If the Chancellor believes in the success of the Plaza II agreement, does he not also accept the consequences of that for lower interest rates in this country?
    Mr. Lawson: I share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that the Plaza II agreement, in which I participated, will be successful. I think that it will be helpful in a number of ways. So far the signs are that it is succeeding, but I think that it is premature to reach a final judgment on that.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: At this time, when the country is greatly anticipating a cut in interest rates due to the Government's prudent economic policy, would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on how much interest rates would be likely to increase if the full public expenditure committed by the Opposition were implemented through an increase in borrowing?
    Mr. Lawson: Of course, there would have to be a massive increase in interest rates if there were to be the misfortune of a Labour Government, which, of course, there will not be, not merely, although partly, because of a massive increase in public expenditure and public borrowing, to which they are committed, but because their policies would completely forfeit the confidence of the world financial community. There would be a major exchange rate crisis, which would force up interest rates still higher. It is fortunate, indeed, that that nightmare will never become reality.
    Mr. Skinner: The Chancellor referred to the many factors involved in interest rates going up or coming down. Is it fair to say that the Government may follow the pattern of what happened before the 1983 general election, when they timed a cut in interest rates to precede the election but having managed to return safely to office they then carefully and dutifully put them up again?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that another factor is that Brazil has suspended payments on the $108 billion debt and that, coupled with all the other Latin American debt, could have a serious effect on interest rates? What discussions did he have at the recent conference on that matter?
    Mr. Lawson: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am, of course, grateful to him, as ever, for the helpful hints that he has given me. On the second part, we did have a discussion about the Brazilian debt problem in Paris last weekend, and I shall be seeing the Brazilian Finance Minister, Mr. Funaro, on Monday.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend realise that among all the difficulties that face small farmers in my constituency, nothing would do more good and help to relieve the position in which they find themselves than the lowering of interest rates?
    Mr. Lawson: I entirely take the point that my hon. Friend has put, and I am confident that, over time, the success of the Government's economic policies will lead to interest rates coming down, but, as I have said on a number of occasions, they will come down only when it is prudent for them to do so.
    Dr. McDonald: Why are United Kingdom real interest rates so high?
    Mr. Lawson: That is a rich one coming from the Opposition Benches, because it was the Opposition who got real interest rates so low that they were negative, and they did that by getting inflation going through the roof, and we are not going to go that way.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. John Townendasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had any further correspondence with political parties on proposals for increases in public expenditure.
    Mr. MacGregor: No further correspondence, but I note a stream of pledge-laden documents from the Opposition in the past few weeks.
    Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that paying for the election promises of the Opposition, which exceed £24 billion and increase every time a shadow Minister makes a further commitment, would necessitate such a large increase in taxation that the brain drain, which has been reversed in recent years, would soar and there would be a haemorrhage of brains and talent such as the country has never seen before, which would adversely affect our ability to compete abroad?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no doubt about that, coupled with the effects on industry of much higher interest rates, the effect on inward investment and the loss of overseas confidence in our policy as a result of the overall programme put forward by the Labour party.
    I know that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is making some assessments of what Labour party policy should be on jobs and the poverty package, but it is clear that the Labour party is still highly committed to a large range of spending programmes in other directions.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is it because of the Government's anxieties about public expenditure that the exchange rate cover has been taken from loans from the European Investment Bank? Is the Minister aware that that has hit small and medium-sized businesses very hard and has meant the loss of thousands of jobs? Will the Treasury reintroduce exchange rate cover for those loans?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so, but that is certainly not because of anxieties about the levels of public expenditure. We believe that they should be prudent, and that is what we are pursuing. We believe in establishing priorities for extra expenditure, and that is what we have done. I think that the anxieties rest rather with the hon. Gentleman. It is clear from the latest Liberal/SDP document that the alliance is not prepared to cost any of its policies because it fears that, in the words of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen),
    "A ragbag of listed policies is not in itself likely to be attractive to the electorate".
    I think that the right hon Gentleman has learnt the dangers into which the Labour party got itself.
    Mr. Hind: In the light of the promises made by the Labour party to increase public spending in a year by £28 million, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what that would do to the rate of VAT?
    Mr. MacGregor: If that were done on VAT alone, of course it would raise VAT to more than 41p in the pound. I note that one or two Opposition Members have said that we suggested fanciful VAT figures. I am sure that that is simply a smokescreen to cover up the levels of VAT or of income tax that would arise under the Labour party's policies.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that since the Al Fayed brothers took over Harrods the Exchequer has lost £20 million a year in corporation tax? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Labour will change the law in many of these respects to ensure that companies pay their taxes? That is how we shall fund our public expenditure programme.
    Mr. MacGregor: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will note that, as a result of the increased profitability of British industry and British companies generally, there is now a bigger yield from corporation tax. That is largely the result of the improved profitability of British industry, which would not occur under a Government pursuing the policies suggested by the Labour party.
    Mr. Roger King: Will my right hon. Friend spare just one moment to consider the plight of many of the hapless politicians who may soon face the wrath of factory workers coming out of the factories, including in my constituency, with promises of skyjacking their taxes?
    Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that my hon. Friend is referring to the policies that the Labour party will put before the electorate at the election. Labour Members are trying to pretend that they would not put taxes up, but there can be no question that the kind of spending programme advocated by the Labour party could be met solely by increased borrowing—the money would have to come from substantially increased taxes as well. My hon. Friend is therefore entirely right.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the material which he uses to describe what he calls "Labour's spending plans" is supplied by a political party—that is, by the political advisers employed by Conservative Central Office — and not by the Treasury, as is so often represented? Is the work on the increase and extension of VAT being done by those advisers or, on this occasion, by the Treasury?
    Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that the material comes from a political party—the Labour party. It is documented in many of the spending pledges made by the Labour party over a period. I have constantly made it clear that I would take items off if the Labour party showed that it was no longer committed to them. In the past few weeks we have seen the following policy documents from the Labour party: "Investing in People", "Caring for People", "Towards a new Agriculture", "Jobs and the Environment", "For the Good of All", which deals with aid, and "Fresh Directions". Either the Labour party is still committed — I believe that it is — to its massive spending programmes, or it is undertaking a massive con on the electorate.

    Immigrants (Remittances)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of money sent to private individuals in (a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Bangladesh and (d) all other countries by people settled in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): The Government do not hold any estimates of these amounts. My hon. Friend might like to seek the advice of the London embassies of the countries concerned.
    Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for that helpful reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that those countries and others benefit as a nation and as individuals by many millions of pounds of investment a year by companies in this country run by expatriate Indians, Pakistanis and the rest? Does he agree that these countries will suffer greatly if there were a Labour Government, because they would prevent companies from sending money on this basis and recall British investment already in those countries?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is quite right to warn his constituents who control such companies about the draconian vindictiveness with which they are threatened by Labour policies on overseas investment.
    Mr. Pavitt: When the Minister is looking at the vast amounts of money that go to companies overseas, will he bear in mind that it is invidious to choose these three countries? That is because most people who are lawfully settled here still have family ties with those countries and often like to look after their elderly parents and their children who remain in the countries of origin.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that any value judgment was implied in my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is strange that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should go around making speeches about massive increases in overseas aid, which would be at the taxpayers' expense, while intending to cut back on the opportunities for individuals to invest their money in developing countries?
    Mr. Brooke: The policies of the Opposition are matters for them. I share my hon. Friend's distaste for the siege mentality that they imply.
    Mr. James Lamond: If it is true, as Conservative Members assert, that considerable sums are sent abroad to these countries by individuals, could the Minister draw that to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, as it demonstrates once again the validity of the claim by many of my constituents whose families are not allowed to join them in this country and who send money abroad to try to support them in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan? Will the Minister also bear in mind that that admirable trait should not be used as a further stick against those people whom Conservative Members resent living and working in this country?
    Mr. Brooke: If I may say so again, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purport of my hon. Friend's question.

    Personal Equity Plans
    Mr. Brightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further evidence he has of the latest response to personal equity plans.
    Mr. Lawson: The response to the new personal equity plans has been most encouraging. Latest available figures suggest that in the first month of the scheme more than 2,000 people a day invested in personal equity plans.
    Mr. Bright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present regulations, which mean that people can invest only in 30 or 40 major companies, are too restrictive? Would he look at the possibility of trying to extend this list so that they could invest in some of the smaller public companies and in some of the unquoted companies? Obviously this would help more investors, and especially employees in companies that are not covered at the moment by the scheme.
    Mr. Lawson: The Government do not dictate the particular shares that are being invested in. Different plan managers have different arrangements and, indeed, there is a large variety in the number of shares in which people have invested. I do not believe that any change is needed in this scheme. As I pointed out, this scheme, which is the third leg of popular capitalism after the growth, first, of employee share schemes and then the growth of shareholders by privatisation, is proving extremely successful despite the doubting Thomases that there were at the beginning.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Chancellor not agree that this mouse of a scheme is attractive only to those who are already paying capital gains tax and to those who are already investing in shares? Will he look at the scheme again and make it much more attractive? Will he adopt the proposals that we tabled in the Finance Bill in order to make it attractive for newcomers to buy shares, and not only for those who already have shares?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. First, far from being a mouse of a scheme, as I said, in the first month alone—which is the latest figures for which we have records—over 2,000 individuals a day started up personal equity plans. As for the question of making it more generous, the scheme does not apply only to those who pay capital gains tax or to existing shareholders. Indeed, Barclayshare, one of the largest of the plan managers, has already estimated that roughly a quarter of those who subscribe to its personal equity plan are first-time shareholders.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Fallonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the starting rates of income tax in other European Community countries.
    Mr. Brooke: The United Kingdom has the second highest starting rate of national income tax in the Community and the third highest rate, after Denmark and Ireland, when local income taxes are included. I shall arrange for further information to be placed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Fallon: Are the starting rates of tax not too high? Will my hon. Friend reinforce his determination to cut tax for the low-paid by paying particular heed to the advice in last week's Militant newspaper that
    412
    "Labour leaders are at last realising the electoral damage being done by their pledge to reverse Tory tax cuts and that ordinary employed workers fear"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must summarise, not quote.
    Mr. Fallon:
    "that ordinary employed workers fear that Labour will increase their already heavy tax burden."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman must summarise, not quote.
    Mr. Brooke: Answering my hon. Friend's question sub specie aeternitatis, I think that my right hon. Friend has indicated that he proposes to cut tax. In the narrower context of St. Patrick's day, it would be wrong for me to quote. The quotation from Militant did not appear to be one which the Opposition enjoyed.
    Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister seen the memorandum from the Tory Reform Group— a number of Cabinet Ministers are associated with that organisation—which has argued strongly that, instead of cutting taxes, the Government should make further substantial investment in housing, education and the rest? Is the Minister aware that what we complain about are not tax cuts for the lowest paid, who should certainly get relief, but the tax cuts that have benefited the wealthiest people under the Tory Government?
    Mr. Brooke: I have read a wide number of representations, from Militant to the Tory Reform Group, but that does not allow me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.
    Mr. Maples: The disparity in the starting rates of tax highlighted by my hon. Friend's answer is serious. Many of us hope that he will soon find himself able to do something about it. Does he not agree that tax revenues are not maximised by high rates of tax? Is that not borne out by the fact that over the last seven years the yield of higher rate tax in real terms has risen by 40 per cent. over a period when rates of tax have been reduced?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that element of buoyancy.
    Following is the information:

    Starting rate of income tax (per cent.) for a single person and for a married couple without children EEC Countries

    (a) National rates

    (b) National and local rates combined

    Single person

    Married couple

    Single person

    Married couple

    Belgium

    19

    22

    21

    23

    Denmark

    21

    21

    49

    49

    France

    26

    19

    26

    19

    Germany

    22

    22

    22

    22

    Greece

    5

    7

    5

    7

    Ireland

    35

    35/60

    35

    35/60

    Italy

    12

    12

    12

    12

    Luxembourg

    11

    11

    11

    11

    Netherlands

    15

    16

    15

    16

    Portugal

    2·5

    2·5

    2·5

    2·5

    Spain

    8

    21

    8

    21

    United Kingdom

    29

    29

    29

    29

    1. The rates relate to employment income.

    2. The starting rates are in all cases the lowest applicable when tax actually becomes payable. The figures reflect the latest enacted rate

    413
    scales, as far as is known.

    3. The rates shown may differ from the nominal rates of tax in the countries concerned because, where appropriate, they take account of employment income reliefs, minimum expense deductions, tax credits for personal allowances and other standard reliefs.

    4. In Belgium and Denmark local income taxes are payable in addition to the national rate. The combined figures for these two countries assume, in the case of Belgium, that the local tax is payable at the rate applicable to the majority of the population; in the case of Denmark at the Copenhagen rate, which is about average.

    5. The higher starting rate for a married couple in Ireland (60 per cent.) reflects the marginal relief just above the exemption limit. Where there is no longer any marginal relief, the rate reduces to 35 per cent.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Nellistasked the Chancellor of the Excheqer what lessons he has drawn from the recent privatisation of British Airways for future flotations of publicly owned companies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lawson: The main lesson from the British Airways sale is that there is very considerable popular support for the privatisation programme. Over 1 million people became shareholders in British Airways, including over 90 per cent. of the company's employees.
    Mr. Nellist: Why does the Chancellor not admit that the deliberate undervaluation of British Airways cost working people, that is, his beloved taxpayers, £300 million, and that £50 million profit was made on the first day, including Lord King's personal profit of £13,000 in 24 hours? Is it not just like all the other privatisation exercises of the Government—legalised theft?
    Mr. Lawson: On the contrary. it is public ownership in the true sense of the word. It is returning savings to the people. As for the hon. Member's expertise in the pricing of new issues, I would have had a little more respect for that if he had predicted what would happen.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one clear lesson to be learnt from the British Airways share sale, and that is that, even without the benefit of a large advertising campaign, there is massive public interest in and support for the Government's policy of privatisation? Is that not conveniently highlighted by the Oppositions determination to reverse our policy?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why we shall continue with this programme throughout the remainder of this Parliament and well into the next Parliament.
    Mr. Blair: Is it not the case that foreign speculation on gas, British Telecom and British Airways alone creamed off over £350 million on first-day profits, more than a full year's cost of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to give free TV licences to pensioners'? Why are the Government so mean with pensioners and so generous with foreign bankers?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member's xenophobia, which he cultivates for the benefit of certain elements in his own party, because he himself does not believe in it for a moment, is entirely without the statistical foundation which he attempted to give to the House.

    Pensioners (Income Tax)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners pay income tax; and what is the total revenue involved.
    Mr. Fryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons in the last financial year for which figures are available, in receipt of retirement pensions, paid income tax of £300 or less for the relevant year; and what were the comparable figures in the two preceding years.
    Mr. Brooke: The available information relates to single people and married couples aged 65 or over. About 2½ million pay income tax totalling nearly £4 billion per annum. However, in each of the last three years about four and three quarter million had no liability to income tax while a further three quarters of a million paid tax of 1;300 per annum or less.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister understand the sense of injustice felt by those pensioners who have a small occupational pension on top of their basic pension and still have to pay tax on it? Does not justice to pensioners demand that those poor people should be exempt from paying income tax?
    Mr. Brooke: Single pensioners can have income up to £16 per week over basic pension before paying tax, and married pensioners can have around £25 per week.
    Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that the figures that he has provided this afternoon show that it is dangerous to lump all pensioners together and that some pensioners are not quite in the category described by the Labour party? None the less, does he appreciate that it must cost the Inland Revenue a considerable amount to collect the taxation from the three quarters of a million pensioners he mentioned'? May we hope for further moves in the direction that the Government have taken to remove those people entirely from the income tax net?
    Mr. Brooke: Between 1979 and 1985 pensioners' total net income increased on average by 2·7 per cent. a year more than prices, whereas the average net income for the population as a whole increased by 1 per cent. per annum. I note what my hon. Friend said, but that again is a question for the Budget.

  PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Speaker: Before we start Prime Minister's questions, I remind the House that questions should be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Franksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Thursday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Franks: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the latest optimistic forecast from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research concerning jobs, inflation, growth and output? Will she confirm that the Government's policies, which have secured those improved prospects, will be continued, not only in this Parliament but in the next, despite the efforts of the Opposition to undermine national prosperity?
    The Prime Minister: I had noticed that report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research,

    415
    which said that the economy would expand by nearly 3 per cent. this year. It has been accompanied by other optimistic reports at the same time from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by excellent construction figures. I confirm what my hon. Friend said, that the policies that have led to a healthy industrial and commercial base will be continued in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Kinnock: When £3 billion spent on high quality health and education services and building homes would generate at least four times as many jobs as an equal sum spent on tax cuts, does not the course of prudence dictate to the Government that they should be using whatever resources they have to generate jobs in Britain rather than using them for pre-election give-aways?
    The Prime Minister: More jobs are being generated in Britain, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The healthy state of the economy, which I have just indicated from the reports today, has been brought about partially by the incentives that have been given by some of the income tax cuts. Most of us want to keep, at the top end too, some of our best brains in this country and one does not do that by high taxation.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that, whenever they are asked, the vast majority of British taxpayers say that they would rather have dependable, high quality services, decent old-age pensions and jobs for people in this country than a few pence off income tax? Is it not clear that their sense of prudence and patriotism is much greater than that of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: We have high quality services in this country. The Health Service is excellent, and, with regard to pensioners, Britain's spending on the elderly is the third highest in Europe as a proportion of the national income. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about tax cuts, may I remind him of what the last Labour Chancellor said about these. He said:
    "With the rate of inflation remaining low, and with these substantial tax reliefs"—
    he was referring to some small cuts on 11 April 1978—
    "modest increases in earnings should ensure that real living standards can continue to rise over the year ahead without unduly increasing our industrial costs."
    He went on:
    "This is the best possible recipe for commercial and industrial success. It is the only recipe for curing unemployment."—[Official Report, 11 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 1207–8.]
    That was a Labour Chancellor.
    Mr. Kinnock: Yes, and does the Prime Minister recall that when that Labour Chancellor said that there were 1 million, not 3 million, unemployed, that we had a surplus in our manufacturing trade, that we had lower interest rates and that everybody — old-age pensioners and others alike—was in relative and absolute terms better off? Will she accept that that Chancellor, also had a 25p band for income tax? Will she introduce that and use any other money she has for generating jobs, instead of trying to bribe at election time?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten a few facts. We now have a higher standard of living than this country has ever known and the highest standard of Health Service that this country has ever known. The day that we were returned to No. 10 Downing
    416
    street spending on the National Health Service was £7¾ billion a year and now it is £18¾ billion a year. The standard of pensions has never been higher than it is now.
    Mrs. Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the report from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which suggests that four regions in the north of England, including Yorkshire, have above average investment? Will she congratulate those companies in my constituency that have invested over £20 million in manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce has confirmed that manufacturing industry is doing well in the north as well as in the south, that exports are also doing well in the north, that a considerable number of people are taking up enterprise allowances in the north and that half the increasing number of self-employed also find their place in the north.
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: When the Prime Minister next bats for the north in Cabinet, will she thump her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy with her bat and tell him to get on with ordering coal-fired power plants from the north's engineering industry? What is the point of planning tax cuts for people to spend on imported electrical consumer goods when there will be no electricity in the mid-1990s with which to run them?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the Labour party is a party of high income taxation at all levels. We happen to believe that people are entitled to the lion's share of their own earnings and that that gives rise to better incentives and a better standard of living for all people. With regard to power stations, my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary will be taking decisions in the near future about what power stations, if any, he will be ordering.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Latham: When my right hon. Friend met the American arms control negotiators yesterday, did she stress that the stars wars project, in its limited research form, has already been immensely helpful to the West in bringing Mr. Gorbachev to the negotiating table and, we hope, keeping him there?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it is the strength and resolution of the West, including this Government, that have brought the Russians to the negotiating table at Geneva. It is continued strength and resolution that will in the end ensure balanced reductions of nuclear and other weaponry. Indeed, that is one reason why the Labour party's policy of one-sided nuclear disarmament is so dangerous and will be totally rejected by the British people.
    Mr. Steel: When the Prime Minister told the Institute of Directors on Tuesday that she believed it wrong for the state to take and spend so much of people's earnings, did

    417
    she not recognise what a poll in the Today newspaper shows, which is that a clear majority of people would rather see money spent this year on jobs, education, pensions and health than have two or three pence off their rate of income tax? Does that not show that the people have a rather higher concept of responsibility to their neighbours than has the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: No. I am interested to learn that the Liberal party also wants higher income tax for people such as nurses and teachers. We do not wish to have higher income tax. We believe that a Chancellor does not give away money on Budget day, but decides how much of people's money he will take away.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the aerospace industry on achieving a 12·5 per cent. increase in exports last year, reaching a record £4·74 billion? Does this not show the strength of manufacturing industry in high-tech, and does it not give the lie to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, who is doing a great disservice to manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly congratulate the British aerospace industry and the company. It had a good year the year before last, which was shown in the company's annual report in March last year. I understand that it has had another very good year this year and we congratulate all concerned.
    Mr. Terlezkiasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Terlezki: Will not the trade union reforms announced this week be welcome in the whole of the country because they will ensure that no longer will the trade union barons have the power to dictate to our industries? Should not power belong to the ordinary trade union members, who should be the people to decide the future of their labour?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, all our trade union reforms have been designed to give more power to ordinary members of trade unions against the trade union bosses. They have led to a new atmosphere in industrial relations, with the lowest number of strikes for a long time and an excellent, profitable industry with good prospects for the future.
    Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister take note of the hurriedly organised lobby of teachers' unions outside the House today? The lobby is asking for the right to negotiate as a union—a right of which it has been deprived by a Bill introduced by a Minister who does not understand what he is doing. Will the Prime Minister do something so that the unions generally know that this is an attack not only on the teachers' unions but on the trade union movement, to deprive it of the right to negotiate?
    The Prime Minister: The overwhelming majority of teachers, and of parents, know that teachers have had a
    418
    better deal from this Government than from any other Government. The increase in pay is outstanding and takes teachers way above what used to be their old bench-mark of the Houghton award. This settlement goes way above that and defines their pay and conditions of service for the first time, ensuring that better teachers get better pay. It is a temporary arrangement until permanent arrangements for negotiating can be worked out.
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkins: With regard to the Government's recently announced policy on the future of Leyland Trucks, will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the division within the Liberal party? Its employment spokesman is in favour of Paccar, and its industry spokesman is in favour of DAF. Is this not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman not here when I made my announcement? Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Prime Minister recall Question Time on 22 January, when she described Mr. Duncan Campbell as ferreting around and as a threat to national security? Will she now apologise to him and to all those smeared by her accusations?
    The Prime Minister: No. The matters referred to were accepted by both Front Benches as a threat to national security. Yesterday Mr. Campbell gave the High Court a binding undertaking not to publish sensitive information about the secret defence project—[Interruption.] The injunction against him was accordingly discharged in the light of that binding undertaking.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Bottomley: With 15,000 deaths and 24,000 new cases of breast cancer a year, does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement of a national screening service is further demonstration of the Government's commitment to women's health?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said yesterday, the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Forrest report in full. This is greatly to the advantage of many women and greatly to the relief of many others, not only in relation to breast cancer, but with regard to cervical cancer. It was a very good statement yesterday and it is a further earnest of the way in which this Government constantly look after the Health Service and constantly improve it.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 MARCH—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the Milk and Dairies and Milk (Special Designation) (Charges) Regulations.
TUESDAY 3 MARCH—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
Remaining stages of the Rate Support Grants Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill (1st Allotted Day).
THURSDAY 5 MARCH—Completion of remaining stages of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill (2nd Allotted Day).
FRIDAY 6 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day). The debate will arise on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. Kinnock: Does the Leader of the House recall that just five weeks ago the Prime Minister was describing Mr. Duncan Campbell as a ferret interested in revealing
"information of use to our enemies".—[Official Report, 22 January 1987: Vol. 108, c. 1021.]
But the Government have now—as the Prime Minister just said—accepted the undertakings of that same Mr. Campbell and not sustained the injunction against him. Would the Leader of the House arrange next week for the Solicitor-General to come to the House to explain why, instead of engaging in eight months of inactivity and two weeks of bullying, the Government did not seek much earlier to take that course of action and obtain an undertaking which Mr. Campbell has made clear he was willingly ready to give?
Can the Leader of the House also arrange for the Solicitor-General or the Solicitor-General for Scotland to come to the House next week to give the Government's reaction to the legal opinion which the BBC has obtained from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, to the effect that the special branch raid on the Glasgow office made at the instruction of the Government was almost certainly unlawful?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is great and growing concern both in this House and outside about people alleged to be Nazi war criminals who are apparently still living in our country? Names have been sent to the Prime Minister by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and I understand that the Home Secretary will be meeting representatives of that organisation next Monday.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that, as soon as possible after that meeting, the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House about any further action which the Government propose to take in respect of any people about whom there may be reasonable suspicion of involvement in war crimes?
Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is urgent and growing need for a wide-ranging debate on
420
foreign affairs? The escalation of the Iran-Iraq war, the renewed Syrian involvement in the Lebanon, the continued incarceration of Mr. Terry Waite and other hostages, developments in South Africa, the Government's use of their Security Council veto against comprehensive sanctions, the threat to the anti-ballistic missile treaty posed by the development of the Strategic Defence Initiative and the implications for Britain of the Tower commission's report to the United States' senate today, are all matters which the House should be able to examine as soon as possible. Can the right hon. Gentleman make appropriate arrangements for such a debate?
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman may recall that last week I asked for an early debate in Government time on the British motor car industry, especially in the light of the Government's readiness to write off debts of £750 million and to make a present of Leyland Trucks to DAF of Holland, which has seven out of nine members of the supervisory board. In view of that, and of the continuing pressures on other parts of the motor vehicle industry, including Bedford Commerical Vehicles Ltd., can the right hon. Gentleman tell me now when such a debate will take place?
Mr. Biffen: On the first point, the right hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explain the circumstances in which the action was taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in respect of Mr. Campbell. But I take note that he would like consideration to be given to a statement also covering the legal opinion from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates; perhaps that is something that we might consider.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about the allegations —I emphasise that we are talking about allegations—of wartime crimes is certainly very much with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I can confirm that it is planned that he will meet members of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre next week. I shall bear in mind the interest that the right hon. Gentleman expressed that the House should be kept informed of these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the range of issues which compel consideration of a general foreign affairs debate, and perhaps that is something which we may consider through the usual channels. Finally, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about making a present of Leyland Trucks, he makes it clear that there could be a genuine educative role for any debate on the motor industry. Again, perhaps we could look at that through the usual channels.
Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not time that we had a debate on farming and land use?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Several Government publications will come out next month and in that context we could well arrange a debate.
Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to debate the prayer in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends relating to the dairy industry and I am sure that it will attract interest on both sides of the House. It is now more than two weeks since the Secretary of State for Transport announced the increase in light dues and said that an order would be made in due course. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has attracted considerable criticism and opposition from

421
many sectors, especially those concerned about the future of the British merchant fleet? Can he tell us when the order will be laid and the House can have an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Biffen: I note and acknowledge the compliment that the hon. Gentleman pays the Treasury Bench on the speed with which the debate on dairy charges has been arranged. I shall look into his second point and be in touch with him.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Could my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on rates before next Thursday so that the House may consider the planned rate rise in Ealing of 80 per cent. by the hard Left Labour council which has the support of the Leader of the Opposition for its high spending on obnoxious policies? Will he table any motion relating to such a debate so that we can consider the awful pressure and agony of that, not only on pensioners, poor people, ordinary working people and everyone else, but on industry which is required by law to be consulted by the local council but which has been refused that consultation so far by Ealing council?
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again reminding us of the difficulties that are created by the activities of Ealing council and, indeed, the wider problem that commands attention — the action of the far-Left in these matters. As to next week's business, there is a debate on Friday on the inner cities and my hon. Friend may wish to make his speech on that occasion.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Leader of the House explain today's major retreat by the Government, which will remove the dishonest cloak of a transitional period from the Government's proposal to impose a poll tax in Scotland? Is it not extremely sharp practice for the Government to table no fewer than 40 major and controversial amendments to a Bill which is subject to a guillotine, only 12 hours after the Business Committee had agreed to dispose of that part of the Bill within two hours? May we have additional time to debate those amendments?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point, but I suspect that there is a good precedent for it.
Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): When can we expect a debate on the Green Paper on the future of radio?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot say this afternoon, Sir, but I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to read early-day motion 649?
[That this House expresses concern at the irregularities and discrepancies in the management and funding of the Community Programme in the West of Scotland; deplores the fact that the Government has prevaricated and procrastinated in its answers to questions on this matter tabled by the honourable Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and that it has refused to publish a report, compiled by officials of the Manpower Services Comission which has revealed mismanagement and misallocation of public funds in relation to certain projects funded under the Community Programme; and calls for an urgent public enquiry into these allegations so as to remove the uncertainty which is undermining confidence in the Community Programme in an area which desperately needs more jobs and investment.]
422
That elegantly worded motion, which has been signed by over 100 hon. Members, is concerned with irregularities and discrepancies in the funding of the Manpower Services Commission community schemes in the west of Scotland. This important matter is causing considerable concern because, inter alia, it reveals weaknesses in the scheme of funding. May we have an early debate on this important issue?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that the Manpower Services Commission has carried out an investigation. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. I can offer no early prospect of that in Government time, but perhaps he will seek the other opportunities that are available.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will be delighted that the Government have decided to end the transitional period and move more swiftly towards the implementation of the community charge? Is he also aware that the Labour regional councils in Scotland have announced massive rate increases? Does he agree that next week's debate will be an opportunity for Opposition Members to join Conservative Members in condemning those acts of political spite?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks armed with the most compelling of arguments. However, I said that I would look at the matter in procedural terms, and I shall leave it there.
Mr. Robin Cook: If it is the Government's contention today that it was necessary to apply for the injunction against Mr. Duncan Campbell only to obtain an undertaking that he would not reveal technical information, will the Leader of the House explain why the Government sought to obtain an injunction against myself and 13 colleagues, since, patently, we have no technical information and would probably be incapable of understanding it if somebody sought to give it to us?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that that comes under next week's business and I cannot add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition.
Sir Bernard Braine: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 450, which stands in my name and that of 74 other Members of all parties?
[That this House notes the written replies given recently by the Secretary of State for Social Services concerning the Infant Life (Preservation) Act; notes the reference in these replies to the fact that the Department of Health and Social Security has circulated to regional health authorities copies of a report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled, Foetal Viability and Clinical Practice, the publication of which was encouraged by the Department; points out that this report highlights the fact that developments in medical science make it possible for babies of increasingly earlier gestation to be born alive; reminds the Secretary of State that it is an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act to kill any child 'capable of being borne alive'; draws attention to the statement in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists report that 'in 1984 72 per cent. of live-born infants of 22–27 weeks' gestation born at the Bristol Maternity Hospital survived'; reminds the Secretary of State that many of the late abortions currently performed are, therefore, contrary to

423
existing law; and urges him to re-examine existing departmental procedures to ensure that prosecutions are brought against those who perform such illegal abortions and to ensure that all centres where abortions are currently performed are contacted in order make it clear to them that late abortions are illegal.]
The motion draws attention to a report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which the Department of Health and Social Security has circulated to health authorities, which suggests that many late abortions are taking place illegally. As a recent decision in the courts may have thrown considerable further doubt and anxiety on the subject, is it not the Government's duty to make a clear statement to the House on the present legal position, and, if it is unclear, to take appropriate action?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my right hon. Friend says. I shall convey his request that the position be the subject of a Government statement to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. However, we are approaching a situation where little Government time is available certainly for any new primary legislation.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I repeat to my right hon. Friend my previous request for an early statement on the British national space programme, as it is imperative that Her Majesty's Government make clear Britain's role in Europe's manned future in space and enhancement of Europe's launcher capability? This is the third and last time of asking.
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure whether to be encouraged by that, but my hon. Friend's request is in respect of a profoundly important aspect of our national economy and I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House at least undertake to try to coax the Solicitor-General into the House next week to make a statement on the injunction agreement that was made yesterday? If he is unable to make a statement at the beginning of next week, will the right hon. Gentleman persuade him to undertake to make a statement once the Committee of Privileges has completed its deliberations on these matters?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I think that I would best help the House by leaving the matter where I did in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the latest spot of bother for the Channel tunnel project, the spillage of a large quantity of dangerous and poisonous industrial waste at the old workings — an environmental issue of considerable concern for those in the area, including my constituents? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement to be made on the matter and could that statement please include an explanation of how this sensitive environmental issue, which has been known to the Department of Transport for some months, was suppressed throughout the hearings of the Select Committee and the proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should not gloat. I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the
424
Secretary of State for the Environment and, in any case, he will be available for questions on Wednesday of next week.
Mr. Hugh Brown: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will look into the problem with regard to the business on Wednesday and Thursday next week, but is he aware that, although the Business Committee met yesterday, it is only today that we have found out through some press statement that more than 60 amendments are now being submitted by the Government? Does that not confirm my previous view that the Government have acted with arrogance and in ignorance in treating the House in this fashion?
Mr. Biffen: I could not accept such a description of my hon. Friends and myself, but I have said that I shall look at the matter procedurally and that I shall do.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the report of the Environment Committee of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England points to a real concern in the nation about the physical condition of our churches, particularly our cathedrals and abbeys, which are, after all national assets? Does he also accept that many of us feel that it would be reprehensible to have to pay to pray, even on a direct donation basis, and that something must be done about the funding of these great buildings before it is too late? Is it not time that we had a debate on this subject?
Mr. Biffen: Any debate should properly follow the receipt of the Government's observations on the report; once that has been undertaken, I shall look at my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. David Clelland: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 365 on the subject of Play Board, in the name of myself and 89 other hon. Members from both sides of the House?
[That this House reiterates its support for the advancement of children's play, as expressed in Early Day Motion 363 which was tabled on 23rd March 1982; welcomes the establishment in 1983 and continued funding of Play Board as the national organisation dedicated to the development of children's play; applauds the achievements of Play Board during the past three years in co-ordinating effort, conducting research producing good-quality publications and especially in providing a much valued advisory and information service to local authorities and their Communities; and urges Her Majesty's Government during its review of support for children's play, to ensure that Play Board is appropriately positioned and adequately resourced to continue to provide these important functions in the interests of all children.]
Will he assure the House that no decision will be taken to change the independence or the status of Play Board before the matter has been discussed and hon. Members have had an opportunity to express their views?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look at the motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I shall refer it to the relevant Minister.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Referring to the Leader of the Opposition's question about war criminals, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something distasteful and abhorrent about the activities of so-called "Nazi hunters"? We must look seriously at any genuine

425
evidence that is produced, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention to bend or change our law in order to accommodate their clamour?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that those considerations will be uppermost not only in the minds of Ministers but in the minds of all hon. Members who wish to live by the rule of law.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is both distasteful and abhorrent to hon. Members on both sides of the House that people guilty of war crimes should be living in freedom in Britain and not be brought to justice?
Mr. Stanbrook: Alleged to be guilty.
Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that he will ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on how those people entered Britain, how they obtained British citizenship and what the Government propose to do about them now?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that we will not find that assertions of guilt by hon. Members or others are taken as tantamount to guilt. I said that I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe that that also covers what the hon. and learned Member has in mind.
Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement next week on the policies of the London borough of Haringey in relation to the promotion of homosexual and lesbian positive images, which allow it to employ four workers at £1 7,000 a year to promote openly gay or lesbian tendencies and which is likely to lead to the death by fasting of the Rev. David Rushworth-Smith?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the point that my hon. Friend has now raised. I am sure that it is one which will excite a great deal of anxiety in the House and outside.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of the extreme concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House at recent developments in football in London? The Fulham football ground is being forced to merge with Queen's Park Rangers and the asset-strippers that have got hold of Craven Cottage will develop it for luxury flats. Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite the great interest and anxiety in the House, London and among football supporters throughout the country, it has proved impossible for us to raise this matter on the Floor of the House? I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not very keen on the arts. He claims to be a great philistine. I hope that he is not also against the more muscular sport of soccer. Will he therefore arrange for us to have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Biffen: It is rugby from the Welsh valleys which is the true art form in these matters. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request, but I think that he is right that there is no obvious and immediate ministerial responsibility. If the situation in prospect could lead to development plans which would be the subject of appeal to the Secretary of State, that would be even more inhibiting.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: When he considers the Opposition's complaint about business for Wednesday
426
and Thursday, and especially the amendment which removes the phasing out of the community charge, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, in Committee, the Opposition argued for precisely that measure?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that all considerations will be borne in mind.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), will he please give his attention to early-day motion 653 which has been signed by 78 hon. Members and expresses grave concern about the implications for football?
[That this House notes with concern and alarm the reports suggesting that the Chairman of Fulham Football Club is proposing to merge Fulham with Queen's Park Rangers Football Club, and that this would mean the end of Fulham Football Club's existence as a separate club playing football at Craven Cottage; notes that any such proposal would involve a flagrant breach of the undertakings given by the Chairman of Fulham Football Club late in 1986, that under his Chairmanship the Club would enjoy a period of at least two years stability playing at Craven Cottage; notes also with concern the interests of the Chairman of Fulham Football Club in Stamford Bridge Football ground where Chelsea Football Club's continued occupation is also under threat; considers that his intentions through Marler Estates and SB Properties to redevelop both grounds for luxury housing is incompatible with the interests of the football clubs; and calls for an urgeni statement from the Minister of Sport on the steps which the Government propose to take to protect the interests of the three football clubs immediately affected, Fulham, Chelsea and Queen's Park Rangers, and other football clubs whose future may be threatened in a similar way in the future.]
Does he accept that the Minister with responsibility for sport should take account of the wider implications for the survival of our national game, which is under threat from the activities of unscrupulous asset-strippers?
Mr. Biffen: The topic is being invested with somewhat lurid rhetoric. I tried to give a reasonably helpful, albeit modest, answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and I think that I have to leave it there.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 63, which calls on the Government to introduce a legally enforceable right to interest to combat the growing problem of the late payment of debts?
[That this House, whilst noting that the Government recognises the increasing difficulties caused by the late payment of debts and congratulating it on its voluntary code contained in the booklet Payment on Time, believes that legislation giving a legal enforceable right to interest on the late payment of debts should be introduced to give teeth to the voluntary code; and notes that in a survey carried out by the Forum of Private Business 84 per cent. of its members supported the introduction of such legislation and that in a survey carried out by the Confederation of British Industry 83 per cent. of its members thought that the existence of a statutory right to interest would result in the faster payment of bills.]
It has the support of 168 hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of the Government's perceived change of attitude to this issue, is it not time that we had a debate on it?
Mr. Biffen: I shall bear that request in mind. Once we get the Finance Bill, the scope for discussing practically every aspect of the national economy is limitless, and I hope that my hon. Friend can contain his impatience until then, when perhaps we can both be satisfied.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has seen the City page of last week's London Evening Standard, which refers to the setting up, with the blessing of the Bank of England, of a lifeboat for Morgan Grenfell. As he knows, the Government are reluctant to make statements about lifeboats, as was evidenced by their refusal to make a statement about Johnson Matthey banks for about six months. Can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement so that we do not have the laggardly behaviour that we had with JMB and so that we know precisely what role the Bank of England played in the establishment of the lifeboat, especially in view of Morgan Grenfell's close connections with the Guinness fiasco? While he is about it, perhaps we can know exactly when those people at the head of the Guinness affairs, those crooks, will be dealt with—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Skinner: —in the same fashion as those 9,000 miners in 1984–85?
Mr. Biffen: First, I was not aware of the cutting to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Clearly my reading is much more limited and doubtless that much more deprived on that account, but on the issue of substance—
Mr. Skinner: It is your paper; it is a Tory paper.
Mr. Biffen: I think it depends on what sort of Tory one is. I shall refer the points of substance that were made by the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: On the Zircon matter, will my right hon. Friend note, in considering whether to ask the Attorney-General to come to the House, that a lot of bogus indignation is being expressed? The terms of the undertaking are extremely wide. They may even be wider than the original injunction, but they relate to technical information and data and to the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is business questions. Hon. Members must ask about debates or statements.
Mr. Hickmet: I will try to put my question in order, Mr. Speaker. When considering whether to ask the Attorney-General whether to come here, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, if Mr. Campbell should breach that undertaking, the effect would be the same as if he had breached the injunction?
Mr. Biffen: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is a perfectly valid one.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Since there is continuing public disquiet about the circumstances surrounding the Zircon affair and it is believed that the injunction against Mr. Campbell and others was an attempt to intimidate and stifle public discussion on the main allegation, that Parliament was deceived, and that the military spent a considerable amount of public money on this project—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not go into the arguments on this matter. The same principle applies to the hon. Lady as to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet). She must ask about time for a debate or a statement.
Mrs. Clwyd: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Given those circumstances, and since many questions should be answered, to which the public and Members of Parliament want answers, will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the issues raised by the Zircon affair?
Mr. Biffen: I wholly reject the hon. Lady's opening words, which were not designed to contribute to a calm judgment of this matter, but merely to exacerbate passion. I have given a response to the Leader of the Opposition and I cannot add to it.
Mr. Patrick Ground: In considering whether there should be a statement on the Zircon matter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Government accepted an undertaking from the New Statesman about a month ago that was worded in very similar terms to those that had been given by Mr. Campbell recently? Will my right hon. Friend say or ask whether the Government would have accepted an undertaking from Mr. Campbell after the New Statesman undertaking was given in the same terms?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says. That is a helpful comment, but in a sense I am not here to judge on merits, but only to take note of the request that there may be a statement.
Mr. Peter Shore: I want to reinforce the points, made by Labour Members who represent Scottish constituencies, about next Wednesday's business on the guillotined Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill. It is extraordinary to have 40 amendments tabled to the earlier clauses of this timetabled Bill and to have only two hours in which to debate the matter—including a major change in the timetabling of the Bill itself. I press the Leader of the House to be much more forthcoming than he has already been and to see to it that the Business Committee either withdraws most of those amendments or agrees to a change in the timetable.
Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I responded in good faith when the question was originally put, and I have to leave it at that.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will recall the sense of outrage in the country recently over sentencing policy. In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend not believe that we should have an early debate to see whether the view expressed by the official spokesman for the Labour party in the other place—that sentencing in this country is too severe and too long—is the official policy of the Labour party? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that prisoners ought to be given more pocket money?
Mr. Biffen: If I disappoint my hon. Friend by not being able to provide Government time for such a debate, none the less, the issue that he has mentioned is of such topicality that I am certain that he can find one way or another of giving it greater expression.
Mr. David Winnick: Mine is meant purely as an innocent question. In view of the rosy optimism of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the

429
Exchequer regarding the economy, will the Leader of the House arrange next week for an early statement to be made to try to explain to the House and to the country why the Tory vote in Greenwich has apparently collapsed?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think that comment in all quarters of the House might be more entertaining tomorrow than today.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are considerable implications because of the Leyland-DAF deal for employment and competition in the motor components industry? Will he undertake that the terms of that deal will be debated in this House before the final joint venture agreement is signed?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend has in mind in the more general context of a debate on the motor industry that has been requested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If I can use my words with great care. Mr. Speaker, may we have a statement on the allegations of Captain Holroyd and Mr. Colin Wallace? Is the Leader of the House aware that, in August of last year, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) corresponded with and telephoned Mr. James Morgan-Harris of Thomas Eggar and Son, solicitors in Chichester—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking for a debate. He must not go into the detail of what he might say if there were a debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This concerns allegations unfairly being made against the right hon. Gentleman by security officers in the mid-1970s. Do not these matters require a statement from the Dispatch box and the fullest possible examination, leading to a full judicial inquiry?
Mr. Biffen: It was a request for a statement. I cannot respond immediately without having more information than the hon. Gentleman has given. Perhaps in due course he will give it. and then I shall be able to let him know.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that three semi-dangerous patients have escaped from the Towers hospital's regional secure units at Arnold Lodge? As a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend arrange either for a statement to be made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or at least for a debate during the early part of next week? I consider this matter to be so serious that I have had to forgo voting in the Synod.
Mr. Biffen: God moves in a mysterious way. I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I shall be in touch with him.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House, as the sort of Tory who believes in honour and true law and order, have an urgent word with the Home Secretary to ensure that the Home Office co-operates fully with solicitors wishing to represent those Tamils who are seeking political asylum here? Will he also ensure that Home Office officials do not make public pronouncements on this case? Members of Parliament are prevented from commenting on this case because of the sub judice rule. Why on earth are Home Office officials allowed to make most disparaging comments?
Mr. Biffen: First of all, I do not, as a Tory, aspire to any of the virtues with which the hon. Gentleman is most anxious to invest me. It is merely that, as a Shropshire Tory, I do not read a London evening newspaper. As to the hon. Gentleman's points about the Tamils, I shall draw all of them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider again the answer that he gave to our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)? Is he aware that, in addition to early-day motion 450, there are two other early-day motions on the Order Paper calling attention to the illegality of late abortions? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is not a question of primary legislation being introduced but that it is perfectly clear, even according to official figures, that hundreds of babies are being aborted each year who are well able to be saved, in accordance with medical developments today? We need an urgent debate to fincl out why the present legislation is not being implemented.
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. However, opportunities exist for the House other than the provision of Government time for a debate. I realise that this topic causes a great deal of concern across the House and in several directions.
Mr. Frank Cook: No hon. Member is more alert to occurrences throughout the Kingdom than the Leader of the House, so there is no need for me to ask him to call to mind the incident concerning Mr. Bob Brookes, who admitted the falsification of quality assurance records on welds at Hinkley Point 16 years ago. He will also be aware of early-day motion 656. It was tabled yesterday and already has 25 all-party names attached to it.
[That this House affirms that the integrity of all industrial plant is of prime importance in ensuring that risk to surrounding environs and adjacent communities is minimised; is gravely disturbed therefore to learn of reports that Mr. Bob Brookes has admitted openly that he colluded at the falsification of quality assurance records of are-welds in pressure pipework at Hinkley Point Power Station some sixteen years ago; pays tribute to the said gentleman for having after all this time the courage to confess the fault by approaching the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to urge the re-inspection of the welds in question so as to ascertain their present state; urges the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to arrange such reappraisal immediately; and instructs Her Majesty's Government to grant Mr. Bob Brookes immunity from all prosecution and protection from any victimisation that may result from his public spirited declaration and to offer an unconditional amnesty to any other worker who in the past has felt compelled to bend to similar pressures and now comes forward with the information to redress the wrong]
The Leader of the House will also know that there was a ministerial statement that welcomed this admission and the making of a clean breast, and it expressed concern about it. However, he should also know that today the CEGB has issued a circular about the incidents that is very prejudicial and highly misleading. It is virtually obstructing an independent inquiry. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that we have some kind of statement

431
next week so that we can question the Minister with responsibility for these affairs and explore the matter further?
Mr. Biffen: I take at once the importance of the topic that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I note what he says about the activities of the Central Electricity Generating Board. I understand that it is carrying out an inquiry at Hinkley Point, but I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that there should be a statement.
Mr. John Watts: Has my right hon. Friend received a request from the Official Opposition for time to be made available for a debate on the popular propositions in their new transport document "Fresh Directions", including the renationalisation of British Airways? If he has not had such a request—the Opposition seem to be reluctant to debate these policies — will he consider providing time for a debate on transport policy generally so that these matters can be considered by the House, as many of my constituents who work for British Airways and who have bought shares recently would like this matter to be clarified in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I must ask my hon. Friend to be patient. I am sure that the Opposition will be so pleased with their policy child that they will be using an Opposition day to have it debated quite soon; but if my optimism proves to be false, perhaps we shall look at it again.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Leader of the House aware that I rise late in these questions because I seek a statement from the Government next week on a matter that concerns me personally and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who served with me in Northern Ireland 10 or 11 years ago? Allegations are going around; there are tapes; there are papers. I shall not go into them, out of deference to what has been said. However, they are extremely worrying to me and to my right hon. Friend. Everybody seems to have a copy of them. I understand that there are to be radio programmes about them. I am not seeking the protection of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to prevent them from being reported, but I am seeking a Government statement about them.
I understand that all the documents in the Holroyd-Wallace case have been sent to the Prime Minister. I listened to the House when the Attorney-General said that they were being investigated. What did that mean? The Attorney-General is a Law Officer of the Crown. I read in the paper this morning at breakfast time that the Treasury
432
and Civil Service Select Committee is being asked to receive evidence on the matter next week. I want something to be said publicly about it, because it is extremely disturbing. It is not a fiddling matter. It is as worrying to me personally as the Wright case is in Australia. The Government or the Prime Minister have got to say something about it, otherwise we shall sit and watch it all being said on the "telly", because nobody is concerned.
Mr. Biffen: Of course I take account of what the right hon. Gentleman said and I shall immediately refer those points to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Rob Hayward: Further to the answers that my right hon. Friend gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), does he recognise the concern that there should be time for a debate on the whole question of abortion, especially as the recent court case raised questions about the time scale of abortions, the rights of fathers and the award of costs when complex legal matters are discussed?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, I take all those points to heart.

Business of the House
  BILLS PRESENTED
    PARLIAMENTARY AND OTHER PENSIONS
    Mr. John Biffen, supported by Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Baker, and Mr. Peter Brooke, presented a Bill to provide for the continuance in existence of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund; to confer power on the Leader of the House of Commons to make regulations with respect to that Fund and with respect to the application of the assets of that Fund in or towards the provision of pensions; to amend Mr. Speaker King's Retirement Act 1971; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
    DRUG COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS)
    Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Max Madden, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, and Mr. Eric Heffer, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the accounts of drug companies: 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 92.]
Orders of the Day
  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
    Clause 2

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 16, after "an" insert "Interim".
      4.10 pm
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
      Mr. Baker: These three amendments, which were agreed in the other place, insert the word "interim" into the full title of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. It allows us to make a clear statement of where the Government stand on the issue of school teachers' pay and why we believe that the interim advisory committee will have an important contribution to make.
      I shall not rehearse at length the history of discord and lack of progress over the past few years, but attempts to reform the outdated salary structure have a long and undistinguished history. In 1981, a Burnham agreement established a joint working party to review the salary structure. That went on for five years without reaching a negotiated settlement satisfactory to all parties.
      In July 1986, the ACAS-assisted Coventry negotiations led to heads of agreement signed by five out of the six teacher unions. On 30 October last year I made a statement setting out the Government's conditions, promising a huge amount of extra money and outlining a pay structure that we regarded as necessary to reward and motivate good teachers. On 21 November, an agreement was signed by four unions, but within a fortnight two of the initial signatories had withdrawn.
      In January, the chairman of the Burnham committee wrote to me saying that a majority of both the management and teacher panels wanted to see the ACAS proposals implemented if the Government would provide the resources. I had made clear the Government's position from the start and the fact that an effective pay structure was needed to recruit, retain and motivate good teachers. As there was no significant move towards meeting my concerns, I made it clear that the Government would not be prepared to make funds available to support the ACAS proposals. Teachers have to recognise the uncomfortable truth that their representatives were unable to agree on a set of proposals that I could defend to Parliament, the parents and the taxpaying public.
      I have been considering the alternative proposals about pay structure that have been put forward, including suggestions by the National Association of Head Teachers and the Professional Association of Teachers. I have also been considering the implications of the settlement in
      434
      Scotland where the outcome is similar in many respects to the Government's proposals for England and Wales. Once this Bill has received Royal Assent, the Government intend to bring forward proposals quickly on both pay and conditions of employment so that the time before teachers receive their 1 January increase is kept to a minimum.
      I do not intend in this debate to spell out the Government's proposals other than to say that there will be some important modifications to our earlier proposals on pay while retaining essentially the same structure. The proposals on conditions of employment will he based closely on the ACAS conclusions.
      I shall now turn to the Bill. We gave this Bill careful scrutiny in this House last year, where it was debated for very nearly 30 hours. It was also debated for over 20 hours in another place. No guillotine has been used in either House, and is not being used now. It returns to this House with 14 amendments, all of which were agreed without Division. These amendments agreed in the other place were proposed by Members speaking for the Opposition and the alliance, and were accepted by the Government without hesitation.
      I want to set out four reasons why an interim advisory committee is the right solution at the present time. First, I do not believe it to be possible for us to establish satisfactory new permanent arrangements while there is such discord among the teacher unions. The ACAS proposals were supported by five, then four, then two, of the teacher unions. In January, when the deputy general secretary of the National Union of Teachers wrote to me on behalf of the teacher unions about future pay determination machinery, PAT and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers protested about the letter that he had written.
      Lord Houghton, who is one of the prominent Labour figures in education, agreed in the other place that an interim arrangement was necessary so that there is time for there to be
      "a better order in the arrangements between the unions themselves."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 27 January 1987; Vol. 483, c. 1283.]
      He recognised that with such rivalry and discord it would not be possible to arrive at new permanent arrangements now.
      The National Union of Teachers and the NAS/UWT have now become united in one respect, in initiating ballots about strike action: an initiative which Lord Houghton described as a "futile form of protest" and which Lord McIntosh, the Opposition spokesman in the other place, described as "unhelpful".
      A second reason why the interim advisory committee is the right solution is the lack of any consensus about permanent arrangements. In the other place, the alliance suggested an independent review body. That was its last proposal—a slight variation at the beginning—which I believe is its official position. The Labour party proposed a national joint council that looked remarkably like the existing Burnham arrangements. Both sets of proposals were ambiguous about the right role for the Secretary of State. I am clear that the new arrangements should not be a repeat of Burnham.
      However, it is too early to say what will be the right solution—
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I want to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the ambiguity of the role of the Secretary of State. If the right hon.

      435
      Gentleman took the trouble to study Hansard or the newspaper articles written by myself and others, he would discover that there is no ambiguity about the role of the Secretary of State, which within our proposals, was fully recognised and given full expression.
      Mr. Baker: I have a note of the proposals that were put forward by the alliance in another place. In Committee, the alliance proposed an independent review body, but gave no details, and the hon. Gentleman must recognise that. The alliance did not call a vote. On Report, the alliance proposed an elaborate structure, in which the interim advisory committee was turned into a temporary review body. That is an interesting suggestion. Representative bodies of local authorities and teachers were to be set up, which could each make alternative recommendations to those of the review body by a two thirds majority. The Secretary of State could also make alternative recommendations. If no agreement could be reached, there would be binding arbitration.
      My point is that that proposal is elaborate because it sets up a review body and also other committees. The Secretary of State makes recommendations. There is no recognition of something that successive Governments have rightly had to recognise—that in the determination of pay a Government must take a view of the actual amount of money that is available for teachers' pay, because it is such a very large sum.
      Mr. Ashdown rose—
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point in the debate.
      It is too early to say what will be the right solution for the longer term. Some will continue to advocate an independent review body. Others will want pay determination without the involvement of an outside body. What we need now is a breathing space and experience of the interim advisory committee machinery before decisions are made about the longer term. I hope that all parties will be willing to think radically and constructively about the longer term after experience of the interim arrangements in the Bill.
      A third reason why the Government favour the arrangements in the Bill is the balance that they provide both for the introduction of an independent voice and for a clear process of consultation involving the parties directly involved. The interim advisory committee will be independently minded. It will receive some guidance from me, but it will not be my poodle. Its reports will be published and will form the basis for thorough consultation.
      I have not personally been part of the Burnham proceedings but I am willing to give a commitment that Ministers will see the relevant local authority associations, teacher unions and organisations representing the governors of voluntary schools to discuss reports from the interim advisory committee. I am very willing to become directly involved in the consultations required under the Act which will inevitably have the character of negotiations.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It would be of considerable benefit to many of the teachers whom I have
      436
      met if my right hon. Friend would explain the difference between the independent advisory board and an independent review.
      Mr. Baker: An independent review body would operate in the way that such bodies now operate—for example, for Members' salaries, for certain officers in the armed forces, for nurses and for doctors. In the interim advisory committee we have provided for a halfway house between negotiations as they were known under Burnham —which have not worked — and an independent review body. An independent review body would, in effect, take away the negotiating rights that the unions specifically want, as expressed by them to me. I have made it clear, and I stress this, that the interim advisory committee is just that—an interim advisory committee. The Government do not look upon it as a permanent solution. But with the experience of recent months and years, it is simply not possible at this stage to find agreement between the various unions. I hope that in the coming months we shall find ways of agreeing to establish a negotiating procedure.
      Within the past few weeks, the National Association of Head Teachers has made it clear to me that it wants a separate voice in any future negotiating arrangements. That view has not been put to me by the Secondary Heads Association, which is the other union of head teachers. There are also head teachers in the NUT and the NAS/UWT. The controversial matter has come up many times in teachers' negotiating discussions. This week, when I saw Mr. Jarvis and the delegation, it was said to me quite strongly that the NUT has never agreed with that view. But this sort of issue must be hammered out. The interim advisory committee will give us time for hammering out. I stress that this is a breathing space. It is the sensible way forward.
      I emphasise again that, when the interim advisory committee makes its recommendations, I shall be personally involved in the consultations required under the legislation and in the consideration of those recommendations, which will inevitably have the character of negotiations.
      The proposals in the Bill—[Interruption.] May I just take this a stage further, because there are various stages in how the interim advisory committee will work, as hon. Members know because they now know the details of the Bill. The unions will have an opportunity, when the interim advisory committee is meeting and considering its proposals, to make representations either individually or collectively. When the recommendations emerge from the interim advisory committee, the unions will obviously make representations either individually or collectively. There is nothing to stop them from working with the local authority employer associations if they wish.
      The proposals in the Bill allow Parliament to have the final say before there can be a pay increase for school teachers or a change in their conditions of employment: no such parliamentary approval is required under the existing procedures.
      A fourth reason why the Government are putting forward the interim arrangements is that further consideration needs to be given to the position of head teachers — the very point which I just mentioned. Of course, the salaries for heads cannot be wholly detached from salaries for teachers, but I envisage that the advisory committee might receive a separate reference on the

      437
      position of head teachers. Any new machinery that may be set up might need to provide some separate consideration for head teachers' pay.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: This morning I was at the mass meeting of the teachers who deplored the absence of the National Association of Head Teachers and the Professional Association of Teachers. They will grab the money when it comes, not having done anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman talks about an interim breathing space. But if someone not unlike the Secretary of State has a grip on one's throat, three years is a curious breathing space because one might be dead at the end of that time. The teachers are determined to struggle against what has been imposed on them. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government are responsible for the struggle—[Interruption.] I know that rowdy Conservative Members will not allow me to say what I want to say. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and his Government are responsible for the disruption in our classrooms, not the teachers, who want an honourable settlement?
      Mr. Baker: I am always pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a leading member of the National Union of Teachers, because he is a peripatetic personification of what is wrong with attitudes in the teachers' unions. In his first sentence he said that he was at the NUT-NAS/UWT rally. but was fed up with the National Association of Head Teachers and the Professional Association of Teachers. He could not resist having a go at two of the other unions.
      Mr. J. F. Pawsey: It is symptomatic of the whole problem.
      Mr. Baker: It is symptomatic of the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is the chairman of the Conservative education committee and knows about these matters, said.
      In reply to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), may I say that the Bill provides for the interim advisory committee machinery to operate at least until 31 March 1990. An amendment to require the Bill finally to expire on that date was overwhelmingly defeated in the Lords. But the Government were ready to agree that any year-by-year extension of the Bill beyond 1990 must be by affirmative resolution.
      It would be optimistic to expect that conclusions about the longer term will be agreed quickly. We need experience of the interim machinery in the Bill. As the Government spokesman in the House of Lords made clear,
      "If in a new and more settled climate the Government were able to reach a conclusion by early 1989 on the form of future permanent machinery"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 1987; Vol. 483, c. 1293.]
      new legislation could be introduced which would set up that permanent machinery in good time for the 1990 settlement.
      The Government will work towards permanent machinery for March 1990. But if we are to reach conclusions acceptable to the Government, the local authorities, teacher unions and church bodies, there will need to be thorough and radical thinking. It is highly unlikely that conclusions can be reached if we are beset by discord and disruption. The teacher unions must
      438
      demonstrate that they can act responsibly and take seriously the interim arrangements which the Bill will set up.
      In the meantime, we need an interim advisory committee and full opportunity for the employers and the unions to represent their views, with outcomes subject to the approval of Parliament. The education of the nation's children is so important that we cannot afford the futile gestures of strikes against a Bill which has had substantial majorities in both Houses of Parliament. Parents will condemn any such industrial action by teachers who will, in total, be receiving an average 25 per cent. pay increase between March 1986 and October 1987. It is only when the Bill receives Royal Assent that I can bring forward the orders that will allow for those increases to be paid.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Giles Radice: By the very nature of our procedure, at this stage we can only debate or amend amendments carried in the House of Lords arid, to our great regret and disappointment, the amendments carried in the Lords were relatively trivial, although the debates there were often of high quality. I found the arguments against the Bill totally convincing, but the Government whipped in their overwhelming majority of Peers to vote down the Opposition amendments. As a consequence, the Government have been able to preserve the Bill almost entirely in the shape in which it left this House in December. That means, of course, that it is still a bad Bill.
      The Bill still infringes basic rights, in that it removes the ability of local authorities and teachers' organisations to determine teachers' pay and conditions. It still gives unacceptable power to the Secretary of State, including the power until the end of September to impose a settlement under the negative resolution procedure and after September by positive resolution. On Second Reading I described the advisory committee, the nature of which we are debating in this amendment, as the Secretary of State's poodle. Clearly, he does not want a pet, but nothing that I heard during our subsequent proceedings or during the Bill's passage through the Lords has persuaded me to change my mind.
      I remind hon. Members about the powers of this so-called advisory body. Its members and its chairman and deputy chairman will be appointed by the Secretary of State, who can also dismiss them. It will be paid for by the Secretary of State and its agenda will be set by him. He can turn down or modify the committee's recommendations.
      The Secretary of State made great play of his generosity in consulting the teachers and local education authorities — if they are good boys or something—but I remind him that there is a crucial difference between consultation and negotiation. That difference means that the Secretary of State does not have to take a blind bit of notice of what the LEAs and the teachers say. He can consult them and then impose his own solution and, of course, that is what he intends to do.
      Mr. Hawkins: Is it not true that the chairman of a review body would equally be appointed by the Government? This does not appear to be terribly different from a temporary review body—if the hon. Gentleman sees what I mean.
      Mr. Radice: I think that even the Secretary of State admitted that this was not quite a review body. A

      439
      Secretary of State must take very seriously the recommendations of a review body, but I am not certain that he will look upon the advisory committee in that way. Most people would agree that independent review bodies are genuinely independent, but I do not think that anybody would seriously contend that this review body will be independent. That is the crucial difference.
      Provided the Secretary of State wins the support of Parliament, he can impose whatever settlement he likes. Therefore, the advisory committee not only remains the Secretary of State's poodle, but it is a dog that cannot even bark. If that body is to be as powerless as I believe it will be, that is all the more reason why its life should be short. Unfortunately, the Government did not listen to the arguments advanced by the Opposition and by Cross-Benchers in the House of Lords, or to our arguments in this House to restrict the duration of the Bill to one year. The Secretary of State was not entirely candid in what he said about this. If it were restricted to one year, it would be genuinely temporary. Instead, the Government have insisted that the Bill, and therefore the life of the advisory committee, should continue until 1990.
      Despite the amendments tabled in the Lords, the Government have even refused to allow the Bill to lapse after 1990, thus making a mockery of the Bill's long title, which refers to its temporary nature. It could last well into the 1990s. Inserting the word "interim", or the word "temporary" as we suggest, will not change the fundamental nature of the Bill. The only argument for accepting the Lords amendment is that it reminds the House of the Government's half-promise that the Bill, the advisory committee that it sets up and the powers that it gives to the Secretary of State will be replaced by legislation which will return pay determination, at least in part, to teachers and their employers.
      Whatever the Government's intention, the next Labour Government will repeal the Bill. We shall set up a new negotiating committee on which teachers and their employers will be represented together, and they will determine pay and conditions. The Secretary of State will be represented on this committee and, subject to parliamentary approval, he will have reserve powers. Unlike the Conservative party and certainly unlike the Secretary of State, we believe that in a democratic society all employees, including employees in the public sector, must have and must retain the right to bargain collectively with their employers. The Bill removes that right and makes no provision to bring it back. That is our charge against it.
      Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that he wishes to retain the right of a future Labour Secretary of State for Education and Science—if such a Minister were ever to appear—to invite Parliament to reject a settlement reached through the process which a Labour Government would set up? Does he accept that perhaps a Labour Secretary of State would have to impose his own view?
      Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman is aware that under present legislation the Secretary of State has power, with the support of Parliament, to set aside an arbitration award. That is the kind of power we are speaking about. There is a case for the Secretary of State under present legislation having some reserve powers. That is not in
      440
      dispute. We are arguing whether we should give public sector workers, in this case teachers, the right to negotiate and bargain with their employers about pay and conditions. The Bill removes that right.
      The Secretary of State tries to justify the fundamental step of removing teachers' bargaining rights by reference to the shortcomings of the Burnham committee and to the need to achieve a lasting settlement of the teachers' dispute. I shall deal with both those matters because the Secretary of State spoke about them again in the debate. As I have said before and have said in this debate, we accept the need for a new negotiating structure. Many times, I and the local authorities and the TUC have reminded the Secretary of State that one of the key features of the ACAS deal was a new agreement on a negotiating structure which for the first time brought together pay and conditions. It also respected the role of the Secretary of State. However, he has not been prepared to discuss these proposals seriously.
      In the autumn the Government decided to write the teachers and their employers out of the script for the conceivable future and to replace them by a system of ministerial diktat. The various meetings that the Secretary of State held with the TUC and local authority representatives were sequences in an empty charade in which he has done little more than practise his by now well-known grin. All along, the Government have been determined to do away with collective bargaining. As they see it, that is the end of the matter.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the negotiations and discussions that I have been having now over two months—in fact, going back three months —are an empty charade. In that case, they were empty as regards the proposals being put to me. Mr. Willis came to see me with the two teacher unions which are affiliates of the TUC. In the document that he left with me, he said that they wanted a joint negotiating council but that many major details were left out.
      It is the major details that are so important when a negotiating council is being set up. So important are they that in the past unions have gone to court to try to determine the details of Burnham negotiations. For example, a vital matter was left out as to whether the Secretary of State should establish the parameters of the negotiations, which was the original position under Burnham. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman was saying a moment ago about what the Labour party would do if it was returned to power. He did not address that question. I take seriously the allegation that he is making—
      Mr. Radice: I want to make my speech.
      Mr. Baker: I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman because he accused me of indulging in an empty charade. I am pointing out that many of the proposals that were put to me were empty.
      In reply to the question about the speed of the charade, Mr. Willis wrote to me on 23 January saying that he wanted to discuss urgently the present position; he said that his office would be in touch with mine to make the necessary arrangements. That did not happen until a month later, on 23 February.
      Mr. Radice: If he had been honest with the House, the Secretary of State would have admitted that the new

      441
      negotiating body for the first time discussed pay and conditions together. It also recognised the position of the Secretary of State. It is up to the Secretary of State to say how many seats he wants on the body. My view is that the concordat which was torn up, with the support of the Conservative local authorities, was an acceptable way of recognising that the Secretary of State is responsible for 46 per cent. of pay. That was a retrograde step, because that should happen.
      The Secretary of State did not negotiate seriously. He did not say, "I would like to have x number of seats." He just said, "I am not being offered anything serious." Of course he was not interested, because he had made up his mind what he would do. He had his Bill and he did not want to change it. Why should he keep trying to pretend? He is not serious. He may convince one or two people from the newspapers, but he does not convince the House. He should say, "I made up my mind. Of course, I am always a polite man, so I like to meet people who want to see me, but I was not prepared to move." That is the truth of the matter, and he knows it.
      The second reason why the right hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of teachers' collective bargaining rights and impose his own solution is the need to get a long-term settlement. We all agree that we badly need a long-term settlement. For well over two years, our schools have been disrupted by the teachers' dispute. I think all of us in the House can agree on the paramount need to restore peace and calm in our schools.
      When, in October, after two years of prevarication, the Government adopted a more generous attitude to teachers' pay, there was a glimmer of hope. But since then, that hope has died away. Instead of building on the achievements of the ACAS agreement, the Secretary of State dismissed that settlement out of hand. He did not want it to succeed, and he knows it.
      Mr. Pawsey: At some stage in his speech, will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the action which has been taken by teachers in disrupting children's education and acknowledging the damage that that disruptive action has done to our schools?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Radice: I acknowledge straight away the damage that has been done to children's education over the last two and a half years, as any reasonable person must. I deeply regret the prospect of further disruption. I have said that clearly, but the Secretary of State, who after all is the Secretary of State, has a responsibility. It is his job to try to reach a lasting settlement, but I do not believe that he is going the right way about it. He dismissed the ACAS settlement out of hand. He proceeded to remove the bargaining rights of teachers and put himself in a position to impose his own settlement.
      On Second Reading, I warned the Secretary of State —if he looks at Hansard he will see that this is the case — that an imposed settlement could lead to renewed disruption. As everybody knows, the three major unions are balloting their members on strike action. As I have said, we deeply regret the prospect of renewed disruption. Schools have suffered enough. But if disruption takes place, the Secretary of State must bear responsibility. He dismissed the ACAS settlement which was freely agreed by employers, teachers and teachers' organisations, instead of building on it. He has not tried to minimise the differences
      442
      between his position and that of ACAS. He has tried to maximise them. Every time he comes to the Dispatch Box, he emphasises the differences. He has not tried to reach a compromise. He has ignored our warnings about what could happen. Instead, he is intent, as he has just said, on imposing his own settlement.
      There was a prospect of lasting peace in our schools. My hon. Friends and I have worked hard to bring that about. Whether because of arrogance, vanity or obstinacy, the Secretary of State has thrown away that prospect. Nobody can pretend that the Lords amendments will significantly improve the Bill or make it easier to achieve lasting peace, but amendment No. 1 will at least be a symbol of our rejection of the disastrous policy which the Government, against our advice, are trying to pursue. It will remind parents and voters that there is an alternative to the Secretary of State's authoritarian policy. That alternative is far more likely to lead to the lasting peace which is so essential if we are widen opportunities and raise standards in schools.
      Mr. Pawsey: My only area of agreement with the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is on the point that Burnham is outdated. I would have liked the hon. Gentleman to be fairer to my right hon. Friend and at least to have acknowledged the considerable sums that my right hon. Friend has found and made available for teachers' pay
      Mr. Radice: I did.
      Mr. Pawsey: It would have been good to hear the hon. Gentleman make that point more clearly. My right hon. Friend has put on the table 16·4 per cent, which totals 25 percent. over 18 months. That is a real achievement which should be acknowledged in all parts of the House.
      I have a sense of déjà vu. Therefore, it might be helpful to remember that the basic reason for the Bill was the failure of the Burnham negotiating machinery to deliver a package on pay and conditions that was acceptable to unions, employers and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Months of meetings, days of deliberation, and hours of argument in London, Coventry and Nottingham only served to highlight the differences between unions. Those differences were highlighted by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) in an earlier intervention. The inescapable conclusion is that Burnham is finished and must be replaced. As Lord Houghton said in another place on 9 February, "Why is this Bill"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase any speech made in another place unless it has been made by a Minister.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice.
      The speech made by Lord Houghton of Sowerby sought to bring out the fact that the normal machinery, after a considerable period, had broken down and it was therefore necessary for something new to be introduced in its place. The noble Lord was saying that it was appropriate for us to be considering alternative machinery. That seems to be an entirely reasonable point.
      Mr. Ken Weetch: The hon. Gentleman will know that in November 1986 the teachers' unions agreed on a national joint council. That was a consensus view that emerged from teachers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me and the House what is likely to emerge in 1990 that is

      443
      substantially different from what has emerged now as a consensus position on the teachers' side, or is the Secretary of State waiting for the balance of power among teachers to alter?
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is the chairman of the Labour party's Back-Bench education committee and a distinguished Member of the House. However, he must wait and see. He said that he wondered whether relative teacher strengths might alter. I found that to be an interesting and not insignificant point. I notice that the Professional Association of Teachers has been steadily increasing its membership at the expense of some of the older and more archaic-minded trade unions, so let us wait and see. Let us see what happens in two and a half or three years' time.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes an advisory committee that will be reporting to him on teachers' pay and conditions. The amendment before us proposes the inclusion of the word "interim". That seems to be an entirely reasonable suggestion. It provides for real consultation to take place between unions and employers. As Lord Boyd-Carpenter said in another place—I shall not quote his words precisely—there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent teachers and local authorities from negotiating to their hearts' content. He was certain that a suitable and sensible alternative would come forward. The point that he was making was that if a sensible alternative suggestion comes forward, why should any reasonable Secretary of State turn it down? There is no logic in assuming that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would turn it down.
      Mr. Flannery: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that an advisory body from a union over a period of three years is any substitute for free and direct negotiation? Is that his view of democracy?
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman must understand the chaos that has existed in our schools over the past two, three or more years. Does he accept that what has taken place over that period is a reasonable way of thrashing out teachers' pay or conditions? The hon. Gentleman must be reasonable sometimes. If he is reasonable, he must accept the fact that Burnham is outdated and that an alternative is needed. He must also accept that a period of two or three years is a reasonable time in which a new system could be put in place.
      Mr. Flannery rose—
      Mr. Pawsey: With the greatest respect, I am not giving way again. I have given way three times already. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman this time.
      Mr. Flannery: Answer my question.
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. The right to join a trade union remains; the right to strike remains. The right to receive a 16·4 per cent. increase remains. Only the right of membership of a discredited body is taken away.
      While the advisory body itself is interim, it gives an opportunity to consider the pay, conditions and status of teachers and to decide what more permanent arrangements might be made to avoid the problems of the past. That interim arrangement will give a reasonable period for thought. It will provide an opportunity to consider the
      444
      various options and to produce a permanent settlement and solution to the advantage of teachers, the education service and, above all, the nation's children.
      Earlier, I referred to the rights of teachers. I subscribe to the view tht the status of the profession has suffered a great deal since teachers became more militant in the early 1970s. I find it significant that it was during the period of their greatest militancy that the greatest erosion of pay took place. I ask teachers to take careful note of the fact that more militancy does not equal more pay; more militancy does not equal more respect; more militancy does not equal greater status. Put more simply, if militancy works, why are teachers, arguably, underpaid and undervalued? Militancy is far more political than practical and I ask teachers outside the House to take careful note of that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This group of amendments lends itself to a fairly wide debate, but I hope that before long, I shall hear more about the amendments from the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful, as ever for your exceedingly wise guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the way in which you carefully keep hon. Members on track and are anxious that we refer specifically to the amendments before us and for the fact that we should stress the importance of the word "interim".
      Those teachers considering disruptive action—
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): In the interim.
      Mr. Pawsey: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, in the interim — should consider how much that action will further damage their standing in society. They should consider the impact it will have on the opinions of parents and children.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that those teachers who want to show their concern about the interim measures do so much more effectively today, which is half term, than they do when they make their point and lobby Members of parliament during full term and sacrifice the education of the children entrusted to their care?
      Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, but I suspect that both she and I agree that the overwhelming majority of teachers are exceedingly responsible and care deeply for the children in their charge.
      Above all, I ask teachers to consider the damage that will be caused to children's education should they continue with their disruptive action.
      I notice that in an article that appeared in an evening newspaper last night there was reference to the Professional Association of Teachers. I find it significant that that association has come out strongly against next week's half-day strikes. Mr. Peter Dawson, the general secretary, says that the issue of negotiating rights is "light years" away from teaching. That seems to be a particularly apt comment.
      I have said before — I am not straying from the amendments—that a teacher's job is a great deal more than long holidays and free periods. Teaching is genuinely a demanding and most responsible job. The 25 per cent. increase in pay that has taken place over 18 months acknowledges two important points. The first is how far teachers' pay had slipped behind and the second is that the

      445
      Government recognise and appreciate the work that teachers do. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his excellent speech.
      I understand the concern expressed by teachers but I urge them to give the advisory committee a fair chance. To reject it out of hand will not help their case. The committee will not have a long life. That point has been emphasised over and over again in the other place. As Lord Elton said —I can quote him directly since he is a Minister:
      "What we have here is an interim Bill. I was glad that my noble Friend emphasised that on two separate occasions in the record when we were in Committee, and also amended the Bill either twice or three times on the face to make clear that it was interim, and he has a further amendment today. There is no question that this is an interim Bill."
      5 pm
      My noble Friend went on to say:
      "I feel the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is absolutely right in saying that this is a functional little Bill to deal with a major problem, not in a dictatorial way by telling the profession and its employers, 'This is how you will do it', but in a permissive and liberal way—using the word in a different sense — permitting the profession and the employers to work out their own solution for as long as it takes, or over a period of three years according to what your Lordships may later decide. That seems to me to be the stark alternative to a dictatorial imposition." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 1987; Vol. 484, c. 434–35.]
      The interim and advisory committee will take evidence from unions and employers alike and there will be a clear duty upon the Secretary of State to consult both sides before acting on the advice given by the Committee. That consultation will play a significant part in the pay process. My right hon. Friend has an obligation to the nation's children. This Bill, I believe, will do much to ensure that that obligation is discharged.
      Mr. Ashdown: I listened with some care to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). We all know that this place is well founded on the words of Humpty Dumpty, who said in "Alice in Wonderland" that words meant what he intended them to mean. The hon. Gentleman, in describing this Bill as a liberal measure, seemed to exceed the normal practice in this House of making words mean what one wants them to mean.
      On one point, however, I can agree with and commend the hon. Gentleman. He took some care to identify the fact that teachers do a superb job, by and large. I wish we heard more of that here from the Secretary of State. I have heard no such thing as that said by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth from the Front Bench or anybody in authority in the Government. On the contrary, for the past eight years teachers have been consistently reviled, denigrated and insulted. Many of us believe that, given the attacks on their morale, the lack of resources with which they have to work and the disgraceful conditions in some of our schools, 90 per cent. of our teachers do an extremely good job. Of course there are some bad teachers, but there are some bad politicians too, and I suggest that the balance is in favour of teachers—there are more bad politicians than there are bad teachers.
      Mr. Pawsey: Clearly the hon. Gentleman knows a great deal more about bad politicians than I do, but if he had been spokesman on education for a longer period he would have known that my right hon. Friend has consistently said that the teacher force is based on the fact
      446
      that the majority of teachers do an exceptionally worthwhile job. My right hon. Friend has said that over and over again.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see any reference to bad teachers or bad politicians in these amendments.
      Mr. Ashdown: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply commenting on the speech of the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter in the first place, as is the custom in the House. I will merely say that, if what he says is true, it is a truth which has certainly not got through to the teachers or the general public, or indeed to Opposition Members, so perhaps it ought to be said more clearly and loudly.
      The amendment now before us was, of course, put down by my alliance colleague Lord Ritchie on behalf of the alliance parties in the House of Lords. It was one of the two most substantial amendments to get through, the other, of course, being to overturn the Government's original intention to enable the Bill to be extended on a negative resolution of the House. I welcome the amendment for that reason. It is at least some small amelioration in the Bill in a direction which must be welcome to all who are concerned about what the Bill does.
      That is not to say, however, that the Bill as amended is one which we find acceptable, and we would wish this matter to be pushed much further. Unhappily, during the process of this debate we have no such opportunity, but I ask the Secretary of State, when he sums up this section of the debate, to give more flesh to what he means by the word "temporary" than he has so far been prepared to do, because this is the centre of our concerns about this Bill.
      This Bill is not just about pay and conditions. It is about the fact that the right to negotiate pay and conditions has been removed from a substantial section of the work force. I do not seek to deny the constitutional right of a Secretary of State, in extremis and with the backing of Parliament, to move to impose his will for what he considers to be, and Parliament agrees to be, the good of the nation. But a decent Secretary of State with a proper respect for democracy and the institutions of this country would, at the moment when he sought to take that dire action, be prepared at the same time to limit tightly the extent of his powers and to put in place, or at least start to put in place, a mechanism which would ensure that he did not have to take that extreme power again.
      The Secretary of State has refused to do either of those things and our opposition to this Bill is based upon that fact. What is being taken away now is the right of 400,000 teachers throughout Britain to negotiate their pay and conditions on what is potentially a permanent or at least a long-term basis. Rights which they have enjoyed since 1919 are now being removed from them. It is an extremely important and dangerous act by the Secretary of Stats.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I am not trying to make a cheap party political point; I am trying to understand the alliance position on this. As I understand it, we are setting up an advisory panel that will recommend pay rises for teachers to the Secretary of State, who can only disagree with those recommendations with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The alliance is not suggesting free union-local authority negotiations; it is suggesting a review body with a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State can

      447
      disagree with the recommendations of the review body if he wishes, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. What is the great difference between those two schemes?
      Mr. Ashdown: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to study our proposals more carefully. If he does, he will understand that it is perfectly clear that the review body has not been set up as a substitute for negotiations; we see negotiations going ahead within both formal and informal frameworks outside that review body and prior to its consideration. It is there in case those negotiations should fail, in order to assist in unblocking blockages. After the review body has made its recommendations there will be a full process of negotiations and ultimately, if necessary, arbitration on a pendulum basis. These are details of the policy that I can touch on later if the House wishes, but they are perfectly clearly outlined and stand on the debates on this matter in the House of Lords.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am very glad to be illuminated, to the extent that one can be illuminated by listening to the hon. Gentleman's proposals, as to what his proposals are. What he has described is not a review body. He has described an advisory committee, with collective bargaining somehow going on in the background. It is a most vague and absurd idea.
      Mr. Ashdown: If the Secretary of State has taken the trouble to look at these matters at all closely he should know that that independent review body will be independent and will be in existence for consultation and may well take on other matters as well, but in no sense and in no way does it limit the right to or possibilities for full negotiations outside that body. These proposals have been carefully drawn up after consultation. They have been detailed in the House of Lords amendments and in various other articles as well and have received the support of a number of unions: the National Association of Head Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations, the Professional Association of Teachers have all supported them. The Secretary of State said that he put some weight on the opinion of the National Association of Head Teachers, and it has supported these proposals as a realistic and appropriate way to proceed.
      The issue now before us is not pay but civil rights. The removal of the rights of teachers to negotiate their own pay and conditions is an action that I regard as highly provocative, and it is bound to encourage counteraction from those who believe that their rights are being removed. I accept that some in the trade union movement and the teachers' trade unions have thirsted for industrial action, and there may be many who look forward to that idea with some relish. I regret that, but the removal, without replacement or at least a time limit on the Secretary of State's powers, of their rights to negotiate pay and conditions is a deliberately provocative act which is bound to increase the possibility of action that he and I, and no doubt others, hope does not come about.
      I hope, as I said to the teachers earlier, that they will decide not to strike, because a strike would damage the schools and their cause. The Bill can be overturned only in the process of a general election, and I much fear that
      448
      if the teachers were to decide to take strike action they would bring about a result that neither I nor they would seek — the possibility of the Bill's provisions being continued. However, I can understand the teachers' frustration and anger, and their determination to defend their civil rights. Their feeling is only encouraged by the provisions of the Bill.
      I shudder to think what would happen if a Labour Government brought before the House a Bill such as this, which sought to impose, without denned limits, the pay and conditions of those who work in the City of London. What a roar of protest would then arise from the Conservative Benches about the imposition of state control on an eastern European model. The Secretary of State has offered two defences. The first is that he will listen to the advisory committee. The second is that this is a temporary measure, a point on which he concentrated a great deal in his speech. Let us look at the history of so-called temporary measures brought before the House. When income tax legislation was first introduced, it was as a temporary measure. The same is true of the Defence of the Realm Acts, the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939.
      We as politicians know that actions ranging from the painting of double white lines by the local authority to major Government laws are called temporary when they are instituted but are, all too frequently, kept going for as long as the powers that be find them convenient. We are properly suspicious in a matter of such importance, and suspect that when the Secretary of State says "temporary" or "interim" he does not mean what he says.
      The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said that the Secretary of State had made this matter clear, but I merely quote the Secretary of State, who said on Second Reading that he saw the Bill lasting "until 1990". Is three years' duration temporary? The Secretary of State said that the Bill would last
      "until 1990-though with powers for its life to be extended on a year-by-year basis".—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 43.]
      Is that a reasonable interpretation of "temporary"? Are we not right to suspect that the Secretary of State's intention is to extend the Bill, and the removal of bargaining rights from that group of workers, to a much more than temporary basis?
      If that is not so, why did the Secretary of State give himself powers to extend the powers of the Bill on a negative resolution alone? Why has he not set a time limit to the Bill, which would show his earnest to put something else in its place? Why has he not already set in train negotiations or put forward the Government's thinking about what structure might take the Bill's place in a White Paper or a Green Paper or some appropriate forum before bringing it before the House? Why does the Bill give the advisory committee the power to consider long-term matters such as the possibility of regional disparities in pay?
      Why is it that when it comes to talking about negotiations, the Secretary of State uses weasel words? For example, he will discuss these matters with the trade unions and with others involved, and these discussions will have the "character" of negotiations. What does the Secretary of State mean by that? Either they are negotiations or they are not. No doubt the unions could conduct industrial action which they could say was not

      449
      strikes, but in the character of strikes. What would be the difference? These are weasel words designed to hide the Government's intentions behind a smokescreen.
      5.15 pm
      The Secretary of State assures us that he will take great note of what the advisory committee says, but the House must reflect on the fact that the members of the advisory committee are appointed by the Secretary of State. They can be removed summarily by the Secretary of State. Their terms are set by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State tells the committee what it can and cannot discuss, and he can, finally, simply ignore its recommendations. I ask the Secretary of State, and every Conservative Member now present, whether they would be prepared to place their civil rights in the hands of such a committee, appointed by a Labour Secretary of State, which would be the child or poodle of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The salaries of Members of Parliament are determined in almost precisely the same way as teachers' salaries under the Bill. There is an independent review, and recommendations are made to Parliament that Parliament can turn down. The only difference is that Parliament always turns down the recommendations of the committee set up to look into Members' pay.
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman tests the patience of the House when he equates the pay of Members of Parliament with that of teachers. We have the right to discuss our pay and vote on it. Those whose rights lie in the care of the House expect us to speak not for ourselves but as their representatives. I note, because it is a matter of some evidence, that not one Conservative Member has said that he would be prepared to place civil rights of his constituents in a body such as this, with such control over it by a Labour Secretary of State. No silence could be more eloquent.
      I cannot understand why the Secretary of State does not understand that by creating this advisory committee, he is creating an instrument that others could use most effectively against what he is seeking. I remind the House that the Secretary of State has the right summarily to dismiss from the advisory committee anybody he wishes. What would happen if there were a change of Government in the next few months and a Labour Secretary of State had the power over the committee that the Secretary of State wants for himself? What would happen if the Labour Government chose to put on the advisory committee people such as Frances Morrell, Deirdre Wood, Councillor Pearman, Derek Hatton or David Blunkett? Is that the instrument that Conservative Members want to create?
      Mr. Alan Howarth: If by any extraordinary chance the hon. Gentleman's party found itself participating in government, would he propose to abolish the review bodies that make recommendations on nurses' pay or police pay? The existence of such review bodies is important as a safeguard of the independence and interests of the groups of workers with whom they are concerned.
      Mr. Ashdown: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he knows that the independent review body has been proposed by the Opposition and is not proposed in this
      450
      Bill. This is an advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman seems not to have followed these matters or to have listened when they were discussed earlier.
      My party has put forward detailed proposals in the Lords amendments and I will not go through them now with the House. Suffice to say that they have been supported by the National Association of Head Teachers —on whose opinion the Secretary of State put so much store — by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the Society of Education Officers, the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations, the Professional Association of Teachers and others.
      Our proposals offer a genuine way forward to restore to teachers the right to negotiate over their pay and conditions, and gives the Government an appropriate and proper say in these matters, including the right to determine the overall cost envelope.
      When the Secretary of State criticised the proposals on the basis that they were ambiguous about his role, I asked him for details. He then complained that the proposals were too complicated and detailed about the role of the Secretary of State. He cannot have it both ways. The proposals lay out very clearly the role of all parties in this dispute in a way that could set the framework for the future.
      This Bill is bad, sad and potentially dangerous. It is bad because it is an instrument to damage goodwill even further amongst the teachers. The Secretary of State can introduce 19 or 1,900 points to define teachers' contracts, but if he does not have the good will of the teachers he cannot put this into effect and cannot produce a decent education system.
      It is sad because the Secretary of State, who is sometimes regarded outside this House as having a faintly liberal conscience in this Government, is now seen once again to be doing the bidding of his mistress in No. 10 Downing street in both attacking civil liberties and the role of local government, as he did in his previous job.
      This Bill is dangerous because it takes away the civil rights of some people in this nation and places that control in the hands of the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that those powers will be used in future by others if they are established here today.
      This is the Secretary of State's last chance genuinely to allay those fears by instituting a replacement for the Bill and some time frame in which that replacement can be made. This is a disgraceful Bill which we oppose. Although we accept this amendment to improve it, our opposition to the Bill as a whole is in no way diminished.
      Sir John Farr: I address my remarks directly to the amendment which came from another place and has been accepted by my right hon. Friend. I am probably the only Member in the House who does not agree completely with the insertion in these three points of the words "temporary" or "provisional" or "interim", which have the same meaning. If there is merit in this advisory committee and consultation is found to be adequate, why insert the word "interim", which would indicate that it has a limited future?
      One uses the word "interim" in various ways. One has to remember in this House in particular that the Stormont Government was an interim Government which governed Northern Ireland for a long time with varying success. If this advisory committee is a success and is meeting the

      451
      demands of the profession and the parents and the governors, and is getting on with the job more successfully than is feared, I would not like to see it swept away.
      Other advisory committees have been mentioned; one of them is the University Grants Committee, and it is no push-over. That committee is looked upon with fear and trepidation by the Secretary of State because it is its own master. It is given money, but try to suggest to it—as I used to do years ago before I learned better — that a university or college should get more. One is very soon told that the committee knows its own business and that it is independent, it has its own money and it is up to it to allot it.
      There is a chance that after a year or two this advisory committee will make a name for itself. Later we shall be dealing with amendments relating to its composition. Schedule 1 sets out the way in which the advisory committee is to be constituted and to proceed. It may well be found that the committee is fair-minded and is doing a first-class job. I hesitate to accept the Secretary of State's suggestion that we should insert in the Bill, at the behest of another place, the word "interim".
      I am pleased to welcome this Bill and to see it on its way because there is so much dissension and strife within the teaching profession in this country. Teachers should get on with the task of teaching children. There have been numerous complaints in my constituency. I have received a letter today from 63 secondary teachers in Leicestershire. They say:
      "The Secretary of State in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill is removing the rights of teachers and their employers to negotiate on pay and conditions of service."
      Having listened to my right hon. Friend and the debates in the other place, and having accepted the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—who is still a very skilled and alert and independent parliamentarian, whose word is not to be taken lightly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said—I would say that the Secretary of State, far from giving himself dictatorial powers, will receive and publish the views of the interim advisory committee and consult the teachers' unions, local education authorities and representatives of the voluntary schools. Any change in pay or conditions of employment will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
      This advisory committee could eventually prove to be a winner. I strongly urge the Secretary of State to press on with the excellent job he is doing, because most of the parents in this country are thoroughly fed up with teachers and will never forgive them for the years of education which have been lost to our children. The Bill gives the teaching profession a chance to restore its self-respect.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: I tend to agree, but for different reasons, with the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) when he wonders why the word "interim" has been inserted. I wonder why it has been put in, because it is purely and simply cosmetic. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the word "temporary", although it appears in the long title of the Bill—which the word "interim" does not — is meaningless? I was surprised that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, no doubt in support of his SDP colleague in the other place, that two
      452
      amendments were made there. To my astonishment he said that this was one of them. I was equally astonished that the hon. Gentleman named the process of having the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure as the other amendment. What has happened is a disgrace. A thoroughly unacceptable Bill came before the House, the Government marshalled their troops and passed the Bill through its first stages. I was amazed when the Secretary of State said that there was not a single Division in the other place and that everything seemed to be done by agreement.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): There was no Division on the "interim" provision.
      Mr. Oakes: In that case, I withdraw my remarks. I find it amazing that the other place let many of these provisions through. It has a dual role as a revising Chamber and as a guardian of the nation's constitutional rights against dictatorial action. I suggest that this is dictatorial action.
      Today at Question Time the Prime Minister seemed to say in a reply that teachers had never had it so good. No doubt the tens of thousands of teachers outside the House today, did not come to lobby their Members of Parliament but to thank them for never having had it so good.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Teachers have it better than they did under the Labour Government. I know because I was in the profession then.
      Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The teachers call the hon. Gentleman a ventriloquist's doll.
      Mr. Oakes: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have the Floor.
      The unions dislike the Bill intensely, and not for some of the reasons that have been given by Conservative Members. They dislike it, not because they are squabbling among themselves, but because it is a fundamental attack by the Government on free collective bargaining. Even if the other place saw fit to let it through, I doubt whether the International Labour Organisation would be happy to see such legislation introduced in a democratic country.
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain for the benefit of the public the negotiating rights and collective bargaining involved in the pay settlement of the police, of judges, generals, nurses, doctors, dentists and Members of Parliament?
      Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about hon. Members' pay. We determine our pay. For the other groups, that has traditionally been a matter for negotiation. They have different types of review body. With this review body the Secretary of State has powers to appoint, dismiss and ignore. He can do anything with a report from this interim body.
      The hon. Member for Yeovil also said that the other place had taken the important step of changing the procedure by which the legislation can be extended from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I raised that point on Second Reading. Many years ago, we passed legislation on protection against terrorism. Every year it is subject to the affirmative procedure and year after year it is renewed by the House. If the Government genuinely believe that this is a temporary Bill to overcome a temporary crisis, why have they in both Houses refused amendments from my hon. Friends and insisted on retaining that power of continuation? That would prove

      453
      more conclusively than the word "interim" that they believe that the measure is for only two or three years. The Government insist on retaining the provision because they want the Bill to be permanent and the Secretary of State to have this power.
      The measure affects 400,000 teachers at present. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for the Environment would dearly love to emulate this legislation for local authority unions. It is not insignificant that when the Government want to change the rating system they use Scotland as a guinea pig. They have decided to try it on the Scots and see what happens, and we shall debate that next week. If we have the misfortune to have a Conservative Government after the general election, they will introduce a similar change in the rating system in England and Wales.
      As a member of the Transport and General Workers Union I must warn the trade union movement at large that this, too, is a guinea pig measure. It is the teachers' unions this time, but it will be other unions next time. The measure, far from being an expedient to deal with critical circumstances, is a guinea pig for introducing yet more anti-union legislation. It is a disguise and a cover.
      I am surprised that the other place passed the Bill and I am amazed that another clause was not amended in either this House or the other place. That is the clause that allows regional discrimination. On Second Reading I suggested that, if the Government intended that, they should use the phrase "local education authority" or words to that effect. Instead—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is anticipating later amendments. He must stick to the amendment that we are discussing.
      Mr. Oakes: I agree that I am straying. I know that time is pressing and I shall return to the point.
      The word "interim" is purely cosmetic. This is an extremely bad Bill and I hope that by a vote later we can demonstrate our contempt for what the Secretary of State is doing to trade union negotiations.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the amendment made in the other place, stressing as it does the interim character of the advisory committee which it is proposed to establish. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) cast doubt on the genuineness of the Government's intention that it should be an interim arrangement, but I am perfectly certain that no one has been more reluctant than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to resort to the powers that the Bill vests in him.
      Obviously, it is preferable that teachers' pay, conditions of service and career structure should be determined through negotiation rather than by order. However, in the event, my right hon. Friend had no choice but to take these powers. Indeed, it was his duty to do so. It was imperative that a settlement of this long-running, damaging and distressing dispute should be achieved. The teaching profession needs to have questions resolved about its career structure. Given the atmosphere that had developed, it was plainly necessary to provide a breathing space to enable passions to cool. Moreover, all are agreed that the Burnham structure must go.
      The problem has been the failure to achieve agreement within the Burnham committee, the proceedings of which have been characterised, sadly, by vitriolic disagreements
      454
      between the teachers' unions at, for example, Coventry and Nottingham. An impasse had been reached and my right hon. Friend was right to require an interim set of new arrangements to be introduced, giving us time to reflect coolly and to make progress on a new set of arrangements. That became plainly necessary when the negotiations under the aegis of ACAS failed and the pressure for it was particularly strong because of continued disruption.
      Within Burnham, a search for a new structure had gone on for five years. It must be reasonable at the end of a five-year unsuccessful search for better arrangements to approach the matter in a new way. Sadly, over the past two years we have seen sporadic but fairly intensive disruption of schools. The hon. Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who I am sorry to see is no longer present, sought to blame the Secretary of State for that disruption. Indeed, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) also attempted to lay responsibility for disruption at the door of my right hon. Friend and perhaps his predecessor.
      In reality, those who make that assertion demean teachers. Teachers are responsible adults who must take their own decision whether or not in any circumstances it is acceptable to pursue a pay dispute by dint of damaging the interests of the children who are their charges. In my judgment, that cannot be right. That view is widely and strongly held by the public. The teachers have done their professional standing and esteem no good in the eyes of society through their disruption. If they again resort to such disruption they will do themselves further damage, and I hope that they will not.
      It became inevitable that my right hon. Friend would have to take interim powers at the moment when the Labour-controlled employers threw over the concordat that had existed for so long, which gave the Secretary of State's representatives on the Burnham committee adequate leverage to represent his proper responsibilities and concerns. They are real. The Secretary of State must have leverage in any negotiating machinery which is established. He is the trustee of the nation's interests in a variety of respects. He is a trustee of the taxpayers' concerns. He is a trustee for our children and their education. He is a trustee on behalf of the community. The community has an interest in the undisrupted provision of high-quality education for a range of reasons, including the well-being of the economy and law and order.
      The local education authorities, similarly, should regard themselves as trustees of the nation's interest in the quality of education, as should the teachers. It was deeply regrettable that the employers plucked a figure out of the air and said that they were not satisfied with the substantial extra amount of money that my right hon. Friend had laid on the table. They wanted an extra £85 million. It is easy to say, "We will have an extra £85 million," when they are not footing the bill. Sadly, teachers' representatives refused to accept a career structure that offered sensible incentives.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide. He must address his remarks to the amendments.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your caution, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      In the interim phase that my right hon. Friend is proposing, during which we can think more calmly and

      455
      fruitfully, the teachers' unions can reflect better on the question whether there should be a career structure that gives incentives — for example to teachers who are willing to take on extra responsibility, and whose skills and qualifications are in short supply.
      The fears of Opposition Members and the teaching profession that this will not prove to be an interim arrangement can be allayed. If they speak the truth as they know it, they know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has great personal good will towards the education profession and teachers. That is manifest in his impressive achievement in negotiating with the Treasury to make it possible to offer an extra £608 million for teachers' pay.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am sorry to have to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his belief that the Secretary of State enjoys the confidence of teachers. I have travelled up and down the country — only for about a month since I took on my present job — and spoken to many people. The constant message that I have received is that the only person who could have made the previous Secretary of State for Education look like a good guy is the present one.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his cheap debating points and make personal and defamatory assertions about by right hon. Friend in the interests of gaining some political advantage and playing to the gallery. However, nobody will admire that intervention.
      The good will of my right hon. Friend has been manifest in the money that he has made available and in his urgent desire to offer more incentive posts to the teaching profession than the other parties in the negotiations have sought to offer. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that under his proposals, which are still available, he will make available 140,000 additional incentive posts, compared with the mere 85,000 that the ACAS negotiations put on offer. Indeed—this is the most extraordinary matter— that compares with a current figure of 105,000. The ACAS proposals would have reduced the number of incentive posts available for good teachers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing details of the proposed arrangements. That cannot be in order on this amendment.
      Mr. Howarth: I will do my best, in my remaining few remarks, to keep strictly in order.
      The anxiety being expressed by teachers' representatives is less about whether this is an interim arrangement than about whether negotiating rights will be restored. I am sure that my right hon. Friend intends to do his best during this interim period to set up the machinery for genuine negotiation. In the meantime, I am willing to accept, as are many teachers—this is a widespread view — that he will wish to make consultation a genuine reality. By his willingness to accept that the recommendations of the advisory committee should be published, he indeed makes that inevitable. The good points that the teachers' representatives will put in the process of consultation with the advisory committee, and subsequently with my right hon. Friend, will be published
      456
      and cannot be ignored. The independence of the advisory committee need by no less than the independence of, for example, the University Grants Committee.
      I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House that he will search urgently to find a new structure, and that it is his hope that we shall find a new structure within the three-year interim period. The Government will, I am sure, search urgently to shorten this interim phase, but one of the conditions of success of that undertaking must be that members of the teaching profession put pressure on their unions and representatives to bury their differences and be more constructive in their approach to achieving a structure in which all parties can be sensibly and appropriately represented; in which all parties can genuinely negotiate and build on the good progress that has been made; in moving the teaching profession closer towards salaries that adequately reflect the importance of what they do and the good quality of their work; and which establishes clear definitions of their responsibilities and of the manner in which they will fulfil society's legitimate and optimistic expectations of them.
      Mr. Weetch: I shall be very brief in my speech and state my conclusions in the introduction.
      My first point follows the one made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who said that he believed that the Government would search urgently for a more appropriate and apposite form of negotiating machinery. Experience is doubtful on this point. When people assume dictatorial powers with promises to hand it back to democracy later, the hon. Gentleman will find that it is seldom handed back. Experience suggests that, when people assume dictatorial powers, those powers, if they prove convenient, are consolidated; they do not disappear.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentioned democracy. Will he acknowledge that the proposal in the Bill that any new pay settlement should be approved by the House is an advance? What could be more democratic than that?
      Mr. Weetch: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough now to know that, when the Government say that they have the approval of Parliament, they mean that they have the support of the Whips' machine in getting the requisite number of votes through the Lobby with a built-in Government majority. It is true to say that the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 had some disadvantages in that respect and this represents a small advance.
      But let me draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State to the Government's statement on Second Reading in the other place. The point was made that most of the fundamentals of the dispute with the teachers have already been settled — the place of the Secretary of State in the negotiating machinery, the fact that there must be an equitable balance of power and the fact that conditions and pay must be negotiated at the same time. I would be the first to concede that rough edges remain and more negotiations are needed, but nevertheless the landmarks have been put down and it would not have been beyond the wit of man to reach some consensus.
      In November last year, a consensus emerged with the support of ACAS, whose expertise is to be directed in such an area. But the Secretary of State, in a one-sided statement, said that what had emerged as the consensus in

      457
      November was the same thing as the old Burnham machinery. I doubt whether that was correct. That statement has not been challenged, but I do not believe that that is so.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon concentrated on the right things, so let me take up another of his points. Why is the Secretary of State doing this? The dispute has a certain amount of artificiality about it. The Secretary of State wants to determine the financial structure of the profession. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that 140,000 posts of responsibility would be better than 80,000. In other spheres of policy, the Government are trying to draw comparisons with a commercial and industrial model—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I pulled up the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and I must do the same with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Weetch: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall not stray any further.
      We have had today one of the biggest teachers' demonstrations and rallies. The teachers are amazed that the dispute still stands, when they are so willing to compromise on a settlement. The Government are trampling across the negotiating machinery for ulterior purposes. If the Bill is an attempt to lift the low morale in the schools at the moment, the Government will fail because the Bill is a recipe for continuing discontent.
      Mr. David Crouch: This is the first time that I have attempted to speak on this important measure. It is not a Bill that I like much, but I voted for it. That is the part that I have played so far, I do not like the Bill because I do not like having to take such measures. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) spoke of 400,000 teachers being put at a disadvantage. I voted for the Bill that I do not like because several million children have been put at a disadvantage for the past three years, along with their parents. I cannot believe that any hon. Member is not concerned first about our children's education. We have for so long watched the negotiations and talks drag on and fail and fail that eventually it was necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take some measure.
      I am speaking in response to a lobby of teachers from my constituency of Canterbury. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that I wrote to him some weeks ago when I received a similar lobby of 68 teachers from one school in my constituency of all political shades and all extremes and non-extremes of view expressing their anxiety about the Bill. I told them what I said again this afternoon, that the Bill is necessary.
      I now realise what is really sticking in the teachers' gullet. It is not that the Secretary of State is taking powers to do their job for them to negotiate their pay. They are worried that this might become a permanent arrangement. They are worried that, when the Bill becomes an Act and goes on to the statute book this afternoon, it might stay there. In the telling phrase of those highly intelligent teachers, whom I respect, the Bill is like a red rag to a bull to the moderate teachers in my constituency. They further told me that it had unified the teachers' unions against the Bill, not because of any proposed pay settlement—that was not the problem — but because they felt that the Secretary of State appeared to be taking draconian measures.
      458
      I told the lobby that the Bill is only a temporary measure. I took the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used this afternoon when she described the Bill, I think absolutely properly, as a temporary measure. I see it as an interim measure. That is what this important amendment from the other place is about. It would insert the word "interim" to describe the advisory committee and that is an important addition, because it could help to calm the present anxiety, even anger, of the teachers. They are angry about the Bill going on to the statute book and staying there; that is not the intention of my right hon. Friend and the Government and that was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon.
      I strongly welcome and support the amendment. If it is understood in the mass lobby and in the common rooms throughout Britain that this is a temporary measure, the steam might be taken out of the present pressure on the Government. We should stress the temporary nature of the Bill and that is why I have sought to make this brief intervention.
      I told the lobby this afternoon that it is not in the nature of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to act as a dictator. He is the last person whom I would ever expect to act in such a manner and the lobby agreed with me. I can tell the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that the teachers did agree with me. It is not in the nature of teachers in my constituency to behave in a disruptive manner. Canterbury is not that sort of place. I see to it that it is not.
      Mr. Flannery: What about Thomas a Becket?
      Mr. Crouch: I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would allow me to digress on St. Thomas a Becket, but perhaps there will be another occasion when I can draw attention to the difficulties that he encountered with the monarch of that time.
      Mr. Radice: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to talk out the Bill?
      Mr. Crouch: No, I am not. I shall even take advice from the hon. Gentleman and not try to delay the House.
      Let us proceed, because it is important that the Bill should be put on the statute book as a temporary measure. "Interim" is the key word. I stressed that this afternoon to teachers from my constituency. Unlike the hon. Member for Yeovil, I am not suspicious about my right hon. Friend's intentions. I do not think any hon. Member is suspicious of my right hon. Friend's intentions on this.
      I said that I rose to speak in response to a lobby. It is not wrong to sit here waiting to be called to speak when one has been approached by a lobby. That is how Parliament works, and that is how it should be. That is what I am doing tonight. That is my response. The Bill is a response to the failure of the teachers' unions in the past three years to find a solution to their problems. That is why I welcome the Bill and the amendment.
      6 pm
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)—that place of murder—always makes a highly civilised speech and he knows that I have great respect for his approach. He gave a speech with the wrong conclusion. The tenor of his speech was to recognise that teachers, who are on holiday at the moment, saw fit to come here because they feel so deeply about the Bill. They came here at just

      459
      a few days' notice to make their feelings clear. They did not say that they would take any form of action other than the democratic procedure.
      The Secretary of State and his predecessor have achieved something that I in a lifetime in teaching have never managed—they have unified the profession. Never before have the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, the National Union of Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Associaton and the Secondary Heads Association come together on one issue. If that is not a lesson to the Secretary of State, I do not know what is, but I doubt whether he has learnt the lesson.
      The Secretary of State has embarked on a venture which can only be catastrophic for all of us. I have great difficulty supporting the amendment. We could argue about the difference between interim and temporary. The amendment is a palliative. We do not know precisely what it means, but it serves notice on the right hon. Gentleman that there is a struggle of which he should take notice.
      The struggle is about the deprivation, for the first time that any of us can remember, of a union's right to direct negotiations. That happens all over eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China, and it has occurred under some very Right-wing regimes. It is salutary and terrible that it is about to happen here. The entire trade union movement is watching this slender debate, because we are effectively discussing the right of a union to exist.
      Unions exist to negotiate freely and fully with employers. That is the result of 200 years of struggle. The Government are blithely reneging on promises that they have previously made. Teachers will struggle on. The Conservative party talks piously about children and how it does not like them being harmed, but only it is harming children. I hope that the Government heed better counsels, reach a proper agreement with teachers and withdraw the advisory committee, just as we shall withdraw the entire Bill when returned to government.
      Mr. Greenway: It is nice to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) talk about the children. That is more than can be said for the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who rightly spoke of good teachers. We have good teachers. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that often. The hon. Member for Yeovil did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister a serious injustice and failed to mention children at all. He must learn to take account of them.
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should read my speech tomorrow.
      Mr. Greenway: Children must come first. Education in schools is about them and their needs, aspirations and futures. It concerns what they can achieve for themselves and the country, how the teaching profession can assist them and how teachers can be rewarded properly.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that we must stress the short-term nature of the amendment. That is crucial, as is the content of the advisory committee.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take account of the vital need for the advisory committee to represent people who understand the
      460
      teaching profession, how it works and the needs of schools. I hope that there will be teachers on it. The committee must comprise weighty people. The fact that the measure is short-term puts extra pressure on my right hon. Friend to ensure all parts of the profession are represented. It is crucial to make this point although it may be made again later. If the House forgets that this is not a permanent arrangement and falls into the trap of letting my right hon. Friend forget it, the profession will face unnecessary problems.
      The Bill has become necessary as a result of the profession's disunity. Lord Glenamara, no less, a former Labour Secretary of State, told me in more than one conversation that the teachers, because of disunity between unions and within unions, had themselves scuppered Burnham. The great problem is what should succeed it.
      The amendment concentrates the mind on the fact that the arrangement is interim, on the importance of the content of the advisory committee and on what should succeed Burnham. The unions should already have discussed the successor to Burnham, but they have been too busy fighting a rearguard action. If they do not get down to considering that serious matter, they will not be ready for the next stage after this interim arrangement has ended, as it surely will.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I would not be prepared to support the amendment if it was a permanent arrangement. I am aware that many admirable people, such as doctors, nurses and members of the armed forces, have no direct say in their pay negotiations, but teachers always have and I hope that they will have such rights again in the near future.
      Teachers have unfortunately been unable to agree on a package of pay and conditions.
      Labour Members have said that there was consensus at Nottingham. That is simply not so. Only two out of the six unions represented there supported the ACAS agreement. In those circumstances, we need the breathing space that this Bill will provide to sort out the new negotiating machinery for the teaching profession. It is on that basis, that it is an interim arrangement, that I support the Bill tonight.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) spoke with great spirit. I understand that the House does not want to divide on this amendment, but it would be a discourtesy if I did not very briefly acknowledge the points that were made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. The points varied between those made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and by other Labour Members who said that they did not want a committee under any circumstances, to the points made by Conservative Members who said that they were prepared to support the Bill on the understanding—I mention particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who all made exactly the same point that it was an interim proposal. I wish to emphasise how important that is in the Government's thinking.
      I have had to act to bring in the measure because of the failure and the background of the negotiations with Burnham during the past few years, which my hon.

      461
      Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) mentioned. I had to do it. I do not seek dictatorial powers. I wish to emphasise that. I will search for a new structure because we need it. There is no doubt about that, but we must have a negotiating mechanism that works.
      I listened to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
      Mr. Ashdown rose—
      Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way to him now because I gave way to him earlier.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwoodrose—
      Mr. Baker: I have just said that I will not give way. The hon. Member for Yeovil can ask me his question later in the evening. I listened carefully to his views and I also read the debates containing the arguments that the Liberals and the alliance put forward in the House of Lords. They moved from an independent review body in Committee to a different set of proposals on Report—
      Mr. Ashdown: That is simply nonsense. I wish to ask the Minister a single question. Would he consign the civil rights of any one of his constituents to a Secretary of State for Education and Science who came from the Labour party, and who was invested with the powers to which he has helped himself in this Bill? Yes or no?
      Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. The Bill is not a question of consigning civil rights. If the hon. Gentleman read the Bill, he would understand that the rights of trade unions are not changed in any way, shape or form. He does not know the Bill any more than he understands the proposals put forward by the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman was putting forward proposals in which he tried to combine collective bargaining with an independent review body. The proposals that have been put forward by the alliance in this matter simply will not work.
      The reason why we need an interim advisory committee—I emphasise to Conservative Members that this is an interim measure — is confirmed very much by Lord Houghton, whose words I paraphrase. He said that it seemed to him that finding a suitable form of machinery would probably take a little longer than 1988 because there were two issues to be solved before satisfactory negotiating machinery could be devised. First, there was the role of the Secretary of State—he recognised that—and secondly, there had to be a better order in the arrangements between the unions themselves. The latter part of that would be very difficult indeed, said Lord Houghton.
      When that emerges, we can move to a more permanent structure involving negotiating.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2 in page 1, line 20, at end insert
      "( ) The members of the Committee shall include persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education."
      Read a Second time.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
      'and who have served on the Burnham Committee'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to take, amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, at end add
      'and shall include members or employees of organisations representing school teachers, associations of local education authorities, bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools and organisations representing the interests of parents.'.
      Mr. Bennett: The procedure that we have had to go through this evening is not especially satisfactory. It might have been far better had we had the opportunity to vote, as we used to have, on whether we should consider Lords amendments, rather than having to weave our remarks around the amendments today. I am conscious of the fact that it would be convenient for the House to try to vote at about 6.30 this evening. Therefore, I will speak briefly to this amendment and try to ensure that Labour Members especially get a chance to express their concern about the legislation.
      The Minister has again given us his half-performance, all front and Hollywood set and Mr. Smiles, but his performance had no depth. He has not told us what he intends to do. It has now been four months since the Government announced this legislation. That is four months in which most Secretaries of State could have got on and got negotiations going. However, all that the Secretary of State has done is to tell us that, even at this stage, he is not sure whether the new advisory committee will take on the character of a negotiating body. He told us that he does not know what he will do for the long term. He certainly cannot give us any evidence that he is trying to bring harmony back into our schools.
      The right hon. Gentleman is left with a position where he is creating bitterness and anger in most of our secondary schools and creating a great deal of apathy in the primary sector. He is left with a position where it will be difficult to persuade teachers to go back to giving their enthusiastic best, which is what we need for all our children.
      The Secretary of State must get back to a negotiating position, and to do that he must get back some of the expertise of the Burnham committee. He may feel that he can impose a settlement, but he must remember that the negotiations on teachers' pay are extremely detailed and complex, and although we may all have had criticisms of the Burnham committee, it has, on the whole in the past, been able to sort out the nitty-gritty. The purpose of our amendment is to stress to the Government that they must call on that expertise in this interim period.
      The House now wants the opportunity to vote for this amendment and to express its disgust at the way in which the Government have treated the negotiations. The Government have taken no steps to restore good will, and to create the partnership tha.t we so badly need between teachers and parents, so that children will get back to a first-class education system. That is what we all need.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: I understand that the House wants to come to a fairly quick decision on this matter. Therefore, I will not seek to detain it with a long speech.
      On Second Reading in another place, a variety of views were expressed about whether members of the interim advisory committee should be independent or whether they should be representatives of particular groups. Lord McIntosh, who repeated the views of the main Opposition in Committee, was among those who said that they would

      463
      like the advisory committee to have a representational membership. That was a minority view in the other place as a variety of speakers referred to the importance of the independence of the advisory committee. The Government believe that it is essential that the interim advisory committee should be an independent and not a representational body.
      I assure the House that I shall appoint independent-minded members to the interim advisory committee as I have done with bodies such as the University Grants Committee, which performs a controversial task without evidence of political bias. I will take that responsibility seriously and I shall consider any suggestions about the membership that are put to me.
      It would not be right to appoint nominees or representatives of groups with direct interest in the committee's recommendations. In particular, a system of nominated members might lead to the use of mandate and recall, quite contrary to the principle of an independent committee.
      Although we do not accept that members of the interim advisory committee should be appointed in a representational role, we fully recognise that some of its members will need to have relevant knowledge or experience of education. Hence our willingness to see an additional subsection in the Bill stating:
      "The members of the Committee shall include persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education".
      I have answered the points made, but I wish to emphasise that the members who will be appointed to the committee will be of an independent turn of mind and not representational.
      Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing those who have been in the teaching profession, because they know how it operates?
      Mr. Baker: Yes, Sir.
      Mr. Ashdown: In normal circumstances, I should be rising to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. However, I understand that hon. Members have other pressing engagements and that there are good reasons for seeking to draw the discussions on this amendment to a close by 6.30. If the matter is pressed to a Division, I shall be happy to vote in favour of the amendment that was moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
      At this point I wish only to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the points that are contained in our amendment, because he did not address them in his speech. The purpose of the amendment is to have it on record that the voice of teachers, parents, local education authorities and governors of voluntary schools shall be heard. That is particularly important in the case of two special groups. I refer first to the teachers.
      The Secretary of State could say, as he has just said to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), that teachers might be included and that he will consider the matter. However, the concern of teachers is that they may not be included. Indeed, they suspect that, when the advisory committee is set up, the voice of teachers will not be heard, for reasons that have already been rehearsed in sufficient detail.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ashdown: No, the hon. Gentleman has intervened many times during our discussions today and twice in my previous speech. In the interests of time, therefore, I shall not give way to him.
      In view of the way in which teachers' rights have been diminished by the Bill, teachers are rightly suspicious that their voice will not be heard on the advisory committee. If the Secretary of State genuinely intends teachers' representatives to be included on the advisory committee, he would give very little away by saying so now. Therefore, I invite him to say that teachers will be included, not that they may be included, on the advisory committee.
      The Secretary of State has to recognise that for various reasons, which we do not have to rehearse now, the trust of teachers has been shattered by the actions of this Government and the Secretary of State. They are deeply suspicious about the Bill. If the Secretary of State genuinely hopes that there will be peace in the schools, he ought to reassure teachers by saying now that the voice of teachers, through their representatives, will be heard on the advisory committee.
      If he refuses to say so clearly and unequivocally, we must assume that his intention is not to include teachers' representatives on the advisory committee and that instead he intends to ensure that it is constructed in such a way as to ensure that the voice of teachers is not adequately heard. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to say that teachers' representatives shall be included, not just that they may be included on the advisory committee.
      Secondly, I find it strange that parents are mentioned nowhere in the Bill. We have heard so much about the rights of parents and about the importance of parental power, but parents are not specifically referred to. If the Secretary of State believes that parents should have powers, why should they not also be allowed to have a voice on the advisory committee?
      I ask the Secretary of State to say clearly and unequivocally that those two groups, together with the local education authorities and the representatives of the voluntary schools, will have sufficient representatives on the advisory committee to ensure that their voice will be heard. That is not too much to ask, and in the case of teachers it is a minor concession that would do much to allay their fears.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 220.

      Division No. 103]

      [6.24 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Anderson, Donald

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

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Buchan, Norman

      Ashton, Joe

      Caborn, Richard

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &M)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beith, A. J.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Bell, Stuart

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clay, Robert

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

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Blair, Anthony

      Cohen, Harry

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Coleman, Donald

      Boyes, Roland

      Conlan, Bernard

      465

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Corbett, Robin

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Crowther, Stan

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Meacher, Michael

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

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

      Michie, William

      Deakins, Eric

      Mikardo, Ian

      Dewar, Donald

      Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dormand, Jack

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Douglas, Dick

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Eadie, Alex

      Nellist, David

      Eastham, Ken

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Fatchett, Derek

      O'Brien, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      O'Neill, Martin

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fisher, Mark

      Park, George

      Flannery, Martin

      Patchett, Terry

      Forrester, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Foster, Derek

      Pendry, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Pike, Peter

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Radice, Giles

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Redmond, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Robertson, George

      Hardy, Peter

      Rooker, J. W.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Rowlands, Ted

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Home Robertson, John

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Soley, Clive

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Stott, Roger

      John, Brynmor

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Lambie, David

      Tinn, James

      Lamond, James

      Torney, Tom

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Wallace, James

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Wareing, Robert

      Litherland, Robert

      Weetch, Ken

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Welsh, Michael

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Loyden, Edward

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      McCartney, Hugh

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Mr. John McWilliam and

      Madden, Max

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Cash, William

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Colvin, Michael

      Benyon, William

      Coombs, Simon

      Best, Keith

      Cope, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Boscawen. Hon Robert

      Crouch, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bright, Graham

      Dunn, Robert

      Browne, John

      Durant, Tony

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      466

      Fallon, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Farr, Sir John

      Maclean, David John

      Favell, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

      Fletcher, Sir Alexander

      Madel, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Malone, Gerald

      Forman, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Marlow, Antony

      Forth, Eric

      Mates, Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Mather, Sir Carol

      Franks, Cecil

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Freeman, Roger

      Merchant, Piers

      Fry, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Mills, lain (Meriden)

      Galley, Roy

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Moate, Roger

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Murphy, Christopher

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Neale, Gerrard

      Gorst, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gow, Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Greenway, Harry

      Onslow, Cranley

      Gregory, Conal

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon

      Ottaway, Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Ground, Patrick

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Pawsey, James

      Hannam, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Portillo, Michael

      Harvey, Robert

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Powley, John

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Price, Sir David

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Henderson, Barry

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hickmet, Richard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hicks, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hill, James

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hind, Kenneth

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Holt, Richard

      Rost, Peter

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

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Ryder, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Silvester, Fred

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Sims, Roger

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Speed, Keith

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Speller, Tony

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spencer, Derek

      Knowles, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knox, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Steen, Anthony

      Latham, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lester, Jim

      Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lightbown, David

      Sumberg, David

      LiIley, Peter

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E,

      McCrindle, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      467

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Trippier, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watson, John

      Mr. Peter Lloyd and

      Watts, John

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3 in page 2, line 4, leave out from "shall" to "a" in line 10 and insert
      "give notice of the matter and of any relevant direction—

      (a) to such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned and to any local education authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable,

      (b) to such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to them to be concerned, and

      (c) to such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned,

      and shall afford them".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 9.
      Mr. Dunn: This is a series of amendments giving effect to a commitment given by my noble Friend Baroness Hooper on Second Reading that the position of governors of voluntary schools should be reflected on the face of the Bill. That commitment was welcomed by the Bishop of London and there was no opposition to the amendments.
      The governors of voluntary aided schools employ 20 per cent. of school teachers. Moreover, they have a general responsibility for the successful running of voluntary schools. Those schools are a very important part of our education service.
      The first of the amendments provides that the advisory committee shall give notice of matters referred to it to bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools and shall afford them a reasonable opportunity for submitting evidence and representations.
      The second applies the principle that organisations representing the governors of voluntary schools should be consulted along with organisations representing local education authorities and teacher unions by the Secretary of State after receiving a report of the advisory committee.
      The third applies the same principle to the consultation by the Secretary of State before making an order coming into force in the period up to 1 October 1987.
      This series of amendments ensures a proper role for an important part of our school system. Therefore, I am happy to bring forward these amendments and I urge the House to agree to them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—
      468
      "( ) The Secretary of State shall, upon receiving a report from the Committee, arrange for it to be published."
      Mr. Dunn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss amendment (a).
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall be brief in speaking to the amendment because it is brief, and although its scope is not great, it is important. The Lords have proposed to us an amendment requiring the report of the advisory committee to be published. We have merely tabled an amendment, the aim and purpose of which is to ensure that that is done within a set and specified time. Our amendment suggests that the report should be published within six weeks. However, if the Minister is prepared to discuss the matter and advise us whether he favours a broader or narrower approach with a different number of weeks or a different specified time, provided that it is reasonable, we shall be happy to accept it. We might be satisfied if the hon. Gentleman can go further and give an undertaking that the report will be published quickly.
      The defence of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State against the amendment may well turn on clause 3 under which the advisory committee reports to the Secretary of State "on any matter" and the Secretary of State in due course conducts "consultation". The Under-Secretary of State may well argue that that consultation cannot be conducted except on the basis of a report being published. He may give an undertaking that such a report shall be published within a certain period, but that still leaves a loophole which worries us.
      Clause 3(1)(a) states that the Secretary of State shall consult to the extent that it appears to him to be "desirable". We are concerned about what will happen unless the report is fully published within a reasonable time scale. It is perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to publish only a small part of the report and to consult in line with paragraph (a), but we ask for a time limit to be set.
      All hon. Members know that there are many occasions on which serious and important reports which have been produced by various bodies for the Government reach conclusions that are unacceptable or uncomfortable to the Government. The Government merely use the device of sitting on the reports, more or less in perpetuity, so that they are lost from sight. Numerous parliamentary questions then ask when the report will be published, but all produce nothing.
      The Secretary of State can use that device when the advisory committee produces its report. He can simply ignore it and not bring it into the public domain. If the Secretary of State were to say to us, as no doubt he would if he were sitting in his place, "I would never do such a thing" — [Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary of State shake his head. Is he saying that it is not true to say that the Secretary of State would say such a thing? I guess that he is not. The Secretary of State might assure the House that he would never do such a thing, so I draw his attention to a column in Hansard which fell to my eye the other day, when the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) asked the then Secretary of State for the Environment when he intended
      "to publish the 1983 survey of improvement grants referred to in the Green Paper 'Home Improvement"'. — [Official Report, 1 December 1986, Vol. 106, c. 518.]

      469
      That survey was reported on in 1983, three years ago, and has not to this day been published. The Minister who is now responsible for that matter has said that a final report will be published as soon as possible. That was a report which was delivered to the present Secretary of State for Education and Science when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. If the right hon. Gentleman can delay the publication of that report for three years, we can be worried about him delaying publication of any report of the advisory committee if the committee—independent though it is not — were to say something that the Government found unwelcome.
      We are asking for an assurance. I ask the Under-Secretary of State at least to say that he envisages these reports being published in full — not partially — and without delay. If the hon. Gentleman can be as specific as possible, we shall consider whether to push the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for his comments. He knows full well, having deliberated with us in a different capacity than that which he now has, that we have always given an assurance that there will be no undue delay in the publication of the report. Much will clearly depend on the urgency of the report and the length of time taken for it to be printed and published. We would certainly normally expect publication to be within six weeks.
      There is an air of déjà vu about this debate. The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will recollect the debate in Committee on the 1980 Act, on what became section 12, and our difficulty in trying to fit a period of consultation, deliberation, exercise and evaluation within a time frame that had never been printed and supported by law. We believe that the assurances that we shall give and our commitment to them should meet the concerns of the hon. Member for Yeovil.
      My hon. Friends gave a clear commitment in the debates on Second Reading and in Committee that all reports from the interim advisory committee on matters referred to it by the Secretary of State would be published. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendment and I ask the hon. Member for Yeovil to withdraw his amendment.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Ashdown: In the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE PROVISION BY ORDER
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
      "( ) An order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas."
      Mr. Dunn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 6 and Lords
      470
      amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 11. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 7.
      Mr. Dunn: I address this group of Lords amendments in the knowledge that Lords amendment No. 6 enables provision to be made for different cases, including different areas as regards conditions of employment as well as remuneration. This would allow orders to accommodate such variations as may be needed to meet the particular position of the voluntary sector. The amendment was moved in the other place as a Government amendment following representations by interests representing voluntary schools. Different provision for voluntary schools is, in fact, only one case in which different provision may be needed. A difference in conditions of employment could be needed as between ordinary schools and special schools. It is even more likely that a difference will be needed as between teachers In schools and those teachers who do not work in schools, such as peripatetic teachers or those who teach children at home.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I am afraid that it is my mistake. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) should have moved amendment (b) before the Minister spoke. I ask the hon. Member for Yeovil to move amendment (b).
      Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to stop the Minister in mid-flow. It was a matter that I was happy to leave. I beg to move amendment (b), in line 3, after 'cases', insert
      'but only where different provision is made under arrangements existing at the date of this Act.'.
      This is a probing amendment. The intention is to maintain the status quo on differentials and not to give the advisory committee, which the Secretary of State has assured us is interim, the possibility of dealing with the question whether there shall be disparities of pay and conditions across the rest of Britain or in certain categories.
      When one considers the temporary interim nature—that is what the Secretary of State has assured us is in his mind—one is suspicious because it appears that he has given the advisory committee powers to consider matters of much longer-term importance. As I say, this is a probing amendment because I am somewhat confused by what the Government have said at various times when this matter was discussed. It was discussed on 10 December, at which time the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science said quite clearly that the Government's intentions in the clause were to allow them
      "to continue the higher rate of pay in special schools and social priority allowances for the inner cities."—[Official Report, 10 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 620.]
      That is perfectly clear and seems to set out the current case. I support that and this amendment tries to put it into effect. When Baroness Hooper spoke on this matter in another place, she said:
      "The Government have no radical proposals for regional or other pay differentiation, though that is an issue".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1987; Vol. 483, c. 1229.]
      However, regional variations and the possibility of such variations were mentioned by the Secretary of State on a number of occasions—certainly outside the House if not

      471
      inside it. Even the Minister of State, despite the fact that she said originally this was only to cope with London weighting and special provisions in special schools, said:
      "It is important that individual head teachers can offer special rewards and that individual authorities can examine the possibility of attracting people to areas in which they can pay for shortage teachers or shortage skills that they believe are important,".—[Official Report, 10 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 620.]
      What exactly is the Government's intention? The Minister should come clean about that, because Government spokesmen seem to be pointing in different directions according to which audience they happen to be addressing. This matter is vital. If the advisory committee continue the present system under which special pay is allowed for special schools and under which there is a differentiation for London and London weighting, I shall not be very worried.
      If the advisory committee were to address the problem whether premiums could be paid to temporary teachers to attract them to areas in which education is suffering because of shortage, we would support that—provided we could find an appropriate way of doing it. If on the other hand the advisory committee does what the Secretary of State often seems to indicate he would like to do — institute a mechanism for regional variations between one area of Britain and another—that would worry all of us and I should be profoundly opposed to it.
      Such a regime could serve only further to divide Britain, which is so sorely and sadly divided under this Government. Teachers would be bound to go where they could get the highest pay and there would be further erosion because the best people would leave the north and go to the south of England. That would be divisive for the education system and the nation and would be damaging to the teaching structure. The Government must say clearly whether that is in their mind, and whether it is one of the powers that they would seek to give the advisory committee.
      My central point is that if the advisory committee is temporary, interim, transitional—to use the words that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State used today — why should the Government seek to give it powers to investigate matters of long term-consequence to the teaching profession such as regional variations? If it is genuinely temporary and interim, surely it should be allowed to maintain the status quo in this matter. Many people will look at the Minister's answers to discover whether it is the long-term and secret intention of the Government to prolong the life of the advisory committee so that it can draw up damaging regimes to set up a regional differential system for teachers' pay.
      Mr. Radice: The Minister should start again.
      Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) invites me to start again. I would dearly love to do so, but I am conscious of the pressure of time.
      Just before I realised that I was speaking at the wrong time, I was describing some of the differences that might occur between teachers with different responsibilities. I said that it would be even more likely that a difference will be needed between teachers in schools and teachers who do not work in one school, such as peripatetic teachers or those who teach children at home. They are unlikely to be
      472
      able to attend staff meetings or to take administrative responsibilities in a school. This amendment will allow such a distinction to be made.
      The amendment subsumes the power in the previous clause 3(4)(a) to make different provisions about remuneration. That power will be needed in order to pay higher salaries to teachers in special schools than those in ordinary schools, for the social priority allowance for schools in difficult areas, and for the London allowance which, as hon. Members know, has been paid for many years.
      I have been asked outside the House whether the Secretary of State intends to use this power. He and I have been surprised at how much fuss has been made about this issue. There has always been a difference in pay between London and other areas. Since 1945—before I was born — a London weighting has been paid. The teacher unions press each year for the weighting to be increased.
      Mr. Radice: They are suspicious of the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Dunn: Suspicious of me? I am one of the most honest and straight person that I have ever met — [Interruption.] I have never invoked parliamentary privilege and I do not intend to do so now. Each year the teachers' unions press for the weighting to be increased. Therefore, they must believe that regional differences are justified.
      The reference in this subsection is an enabling provision. The Secretary of State is not required by the legislation to provide for different provision in different areas, but the legislation allows this possibility to be kept open. The alliance amendment as ably moved by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is intended to limit any use of this power to the type of provisions presently in use for differential pay. The hon. Gentleman's amendment — with which I do not agree—clearly makes that point, but this would be an unreasonable constraint on the type of issue which could well be usefully considered by the interim advisory committee. In addition, in terms of conditions of employment, different provision could not be made for different cases. Therefore, it would undermine the very reason why the interests representing voluntary schools asked for the amendment to be made.
      Neither the Government nor the Secretary of State intend to bring forward any immediate radical proposals for regional pay differentations. We shall consider carefully whether it is an issue that should be addressed by the advisory committee. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister's reply will disappoint not only hon. Members but the teacher organisations, because clearly the amendment was intended to probe whether the suspicions of teacher unions and other people were justified. The Secretary of State has confirmed those suspicions, because instead of trying to create good will and trying to break down barriers he has created barriers. He well knows that the teacher organisations and the majority of our people do not favour the development of more regional allowances and an extension of the scheme for London allowances, nor do they favour differential rates for different subjects.
      These are extremely contentious areas and the Government want to pretend that this is only an interim measure to bridge the gap across the present problems.

      473
      They are foolish to bring in new proposals which cause a great deal of anxiety and suspicion. I am worried by the Minister's reference to peripatetic teachers. He said that they would have to be paid at a different rate to teachers whom he suggested turned up at parents' evenings. I know a large number of peripatetic teachers who turn up at staff meetings and parents' evenings. They feel that they have the same responsibilities as other teachers to pass on information to their colleagues and to make sure that parents know about the instruction that pupils are receiving.
      The Minister's remarks will give rise to considerable anxiety on the part of teachers who move from place to place if they feel that they might be treated in a different way to other teachers. We are alarmed and dissatisfied by the Minister's response. If he wants to reach a quick agreement about teachers' pay, he should give a clear and categorical assurance that, at least in the first two years, he will not use this procedure or even contemplate using it to enforce different rates of pay and different subject ratings in various parts of the country. He has increased our fears and the fears of the teachers and done nothing to allay the suspicions.
      7 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: One point that causes me great concern is that northern teachers might be tempted to move south if there were regional differentials in pay. Those of us who represent cities in the north are aware that we have major problems in employment. We need improved training to equip our children for the jobs that we hope to develop in the regions. To do that, we have to keep our good teachers in the north and in the provinces. We do not want them to be sucked into the south-east where there is relative prosperity compared with parts of the north. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to be circumspect in his proposals.
      One way in which my hon. Friend could overcome the suspicion voiced by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) from a sedentary position would be to call together employers and the trade unions, and to encourage them to hammer out an agreement that would meet the approval of the advisory committee. That might overcome the worries and anxieties that the teachers' lobby expressed today to hon. Members.
      It would be a sign of good faith by my hon. Friend that he sees the Bill purely as a temporary measure, whose provisions are not to extend beyond 1990 except with the approval of the House. It will reassure teachers, particularly in the provinces, that their career prospects will at least be equal to those of teachers in London and the south-east. It will also reassure parents in the regions that their good teachers will not be attracted to other parts of the country by higher salaries.
      Mr. Dunn: I welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I hope I did not mislead the House earlier. I must make it clear that the Government have no intention of discriminating against peripatetic teachers or those who teach at home. Some of the duties of other teachers may not fall upon peripatetic teachers.
      I direct the attention of the House to the debate in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
      474
      "There is a provision for different cases. This will allow us to continue the higher rate of pay in special schools and social priority allowances for the inner cities. It is an important method of ensuring that there arc teachers in schools that are in serious need of an extended number of teachers to help with their special deprivations."
      Later, she said:
      "The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Burnley talked about regional differences. They were concerned about any proposition that there could be different regional pay. Their argument was that the proposed pay structure that should be accepted included sufficient rewards for classroom teachers and there was no need for any incentives for shortage teachers or shortage skills, and no need to get teachers to go into difficult posts by having different scales because it would create difficulties.
      The Government's argument is the reverse. It is important that individual head teachers can offer special rewards and that individual authorities can examine the possibility of attracting people to areas in which they can pay for shortage teachers or shortage skills that they believe are important, and also that they can get good teachers to take up difficult posts either in inner city areas or in rural areas." — [Official Report, 10 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 620.]
      In another place, when the Lord Chancellor speaks in a judicial capacity he speaks from one part of the Woolsack. When he speaks in a political capacity, he takes a step to the left or the right; I cannot remember which. I should almost like to do the same. In joining debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West, I must remind him that the problems of recruitment because of the high price of housing in the south-east, which I represent, are in no way less severe than those in the region to which he has referred and in which I was born.
      In the light of recent developments, I hope that the House will accept the Lords amendment and reject the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
      Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has put his case with his usual urbane charm and in a very civilised manner. Of course, lurking underneath are the concerns which, as was said by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), have not been put to rest. I hope the Minister listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who spoke with considerable cogency and put the case with great effect. Nevertheless, for the convenience of the House, although I do not wish this to be taken to indicate our consent to regional differentials, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

    New Clause

      ARRANGEMENTS FOR SETTLING REMUNERATION AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS IN FURTHER EDUCATION
      Lords amendment: No. 10, after clause 3, insert the following new clause:
      ".—(1) Any arrangements for settling for the whole of England and Wales any matter relating to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of teachers in further education, or any description of such teachers, shall be such that every organisation which—

      (a) was represented immediately before the passing of this Act on the Burnham Further Education Committee, and

      475

      (b) has members whose conditions of employment may be affected,

      is afforded a reasonable opportunity of participating in the process.
      (2) The 'Burnham Further Education Committee' means the committee set up in pursuance of section 1 of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 to consider the remuneration payable to teachers in further education.
      (3) It is the duty of the parties to any such arrangements to take any steps necessary to secure that the requirements of this section are complied with.
      (4) This section applies to arrangements notwithstanding that they were made before the passing of this Act and any steps required to be taken in relation to such arrangements shall be taken before anything is done in pursuance of the arrangements after the passing of this Act."
      Mr. Dunn: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Dunn: The amendment, put down by my noble Friend Baroness Cox in Committee in the Lords, stemmed from the general concern that the interests of those smaller unions on the Burnham further education committee who had a distinctive contribution to make should be protected. That concern was first expressed in Committee here by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). He feared that the Association of Polytechnic Teachers might be excluded from any national negotiating framework set up by representatives of the local authority employers and the further education teachers. The concern is a valid one. The National Joint Council for Further Education, which deals with the conditions of employment of further education teachers, and was set up jointly by the local authority employers and representatives of teachers in further education, does not include the APT. The APT has pressed without success to be in this body. As it has 20 per cent. of polytechnic lecturer in its membership, it has a strong case for representation.
      The amendment protects not only the APT's interest but also that of the other smaller unions on Burnham FE, who have a right to be involved because of their distinctive contribution. I am thinking particularly of the National Society for Education in Art and Design, and the Association of Agricultural Education Staffs.
      The amendment was accepted in another place without a Division and, I think it is fair to say, with a good measure of support from all sides. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that he was in sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock said that he supported the amendment in principle. I hope that the House will agree that the amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give us a little more information? As he will be aware, the FE negotiations over pay and conditions were going well until the middle of the autumn, when they ran into certain difficulties. As I understand it, the negotiations have restarted today. While I have been in the House I have not been able to find out whether the negotiations are going on or whether they have run into further difficulties. I hope that the negotiations are continuing and that, as a result of the negotiations today, there may well be a phase when some detailed working parties have to be set up.
      When this measure receives Royal Assent, I am a little concerned about how far the negotiations might have to be interrupted in order to adjust the groups of people who are doing the negotiating. It might be rather unfortunate if the negotiating body was being changed in the middle of negotiations that were reaching a certain measure of success. I hope that the negotiations that started again today will have reached major agreement on many points. I am sure that the Government would want those negotiations to be successful and for harmony to return to our FE institutions.
      It would be helpful if the Government could say whether they envisage those negotiations being completed with the existing group of negotiators or whether they feel, as a result of the amendment, that it will be necessary to restart in some of those areas in which agreement has already been reached. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the negotiations are moving along successfully. I also hope that he will tell us what is going to happen on the matter of changing the negotiators if the amendment is carried and the measure receives Royal Assent in the not-too-distant future.
      Mr. Dunn: Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), having been in purdah, as it were, in the House from midday, I am not aware of the developments to which he referred. However, I shall of course ensure that we become aware of what has happened today.
      The hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. The national joint council meeting does not involve the APT because there is no requirement for it to be involved. However, as he rightly surmises, it will require the APT to be involved from the point of Royal Assent.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 14 agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.).
    That the draft Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
    Question agreed to.

    Maltby Far and Low Commons
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
    7.12 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I should like, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on a local issue for my constituency which also has some national implications. I do not want to rehearse the arguments I put forward in an Adjournment debate on 19 December 1984 on the ownership of Maltby Far and Low Commons. However, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. William Bunting of Periplanta, Thorne, near Doncaster. Over many years he has sought to answer the question of who does own Maltby Far and Low Commons. His historical research has been invaluable to those who object to what is happening on the commons. It has been a thorn in the side of the applicant who has had the go-ahead to build on a section of Maltby Far and Low Commons.
    On 19 December 1986, the Secretary of State for the Environment granted a limitation order on the commons under section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. This is the first time since the Act's inception that common land has been handed over to be used as a golf course. It obviously has major implications for other common land throughout the country.
    The local objectors and I believe that a golf course would be an asset to the district that I represent and live in. We believe that the only thing wrong is that the common land should not be used to complete that golf course. It took the Secretary of State for the Environment over two years to make the decision, since first receiving the inspectors' report on the public inquiry in November 1984. During that time, the local authority has sought from the Earl of Scarbrough, the applicant in the case, the evidence of his claim to ownership. It believes that his continued refusal strengthens the impression that he is unsure of his ground in relation to this matter. It certainly has made his ground unsure.
    The Earl of Scarbrough's solicitor sent a letter to Rotherham borough council in October 1985 stating:
    "Our client considers that the matter should rest with the Secretary of State's determination that he is satisfied as to our client's title to the commons."
    I and many residents of Maltby believe that there has been a breach of natural justice in this case. Indeed, it was said at the public inquiry in 1982 that we had to take the Earl of Scarbrough to a court of law before we could see his claim to the ownership of the commons. That would involve expense perhaps in the region of £20,000, which either I or other people who have rights to the commons would have to find. I believe that that was said at the public inquiry in full knowledge of that fact.
    I have received a selection of letters since the granting of the limitation order, and I should like to read out what my constituents have been saying in relation to this matter. I received a letter from Mr. John Hadgett of Muglet lane in Maltby, who wrote:
    "However, what the Secretary appears to have forgotten is that Lord Scarbrough has far from satisfied myself, and indeed, many more people who object to the golf course that he has claim to the land. And basically that is all we would like him to do."
    478
    That is all we have ever asked the Earl of Scarbrough to do. We just want him to show us his claim of title to the land that the Secretary of State for the Environment has supposedly seen.
    I received a letter from Mr. Tom Routledge of Dunns Dale in Maltby, who states:
    "I do not object to golfers or golf courses, but to the fact that the commons are being used. In a free democracy the onus should be on the Earl to furnish proof of ownership."
    Mr. K. McGrath of Greenland avenue in Maltby, who I should add is related to me through marriage, has been very specific about the decision. He said:
    "I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 6 where it states 'You (Messrs. Allen and Overy) wrote to the department on the 7th July 1981 giving details of your client's title to the soil, supported by copy documents of title'. The first two lines of paragraph 11 seem to contradict the aforementioned quote. Paragraph 11 goes on to say that no better claims had been received from anyone else. This is an extraordinary statement. Am I to assume from this that the Department of the Environment has seen evidence, which is not satisfactory, i.e. not conclusive proof of ownership, but that nothing better has been offered by anyone else?"
    That question should be fully answered at the Dispatch Box tonight. Is it the case that, because there has been no definite proof of evidence from anyone else about ownership of the commons, the Department of the Environment has accepted from the Earl of Scarbrough something that falls short of definite evidence about the ownership of the commons?
    The decision on the limitation order has not pleased many members of the local community who use the commons for their own recreation. The actions of the Secretary of State and the Earl of Scarbrough have made people suspicious of their motives. In a letter that I received from a Mr. K. Routledge of Hawthorn avenue, Maltby, he used what is now quite a popular saying in political circles. He said:
    "Scarbrough"—
    meaning the noble Lord—
    "his legal advisers and his beloved Tory party have been less than economical with the truth."
    Of course, it would be quite wrong to use this language just because the Earl of Scarbrough is president of the South Yorkshire Conservative Association, but his actions on Maltby commons need some explanation. The information that I received from the Rotherham metropolitan borough council in relation to the proposed golf course was that it knew about the proposals on 15 August 1975. It received the planning application for the building of the golf course on part of these commons in April 1976. What seems extraordinary to me, particularly since the land was registered as common under the Commons Registration Act 1965, is that the Earl did not apply for his limitation order until 25 June 1979, and he would obviously have to have that before the golf course could go ahead.
    Of course, in May, 1979 there was a general election and the Conservative party took office, so presumably the noble Lord then had somebody in the Department of the Environment who might be politically sympathetic.
    Since the inspector's report was submitted to the Department of the Environment, there have been three Secretaries of State who could have given the go-ahead to the golf course. The right hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) chose not to give permission. It is most unfortunate that the present Secretary of State for the Environment has seen fit to give that permission.

    479
    I would like that decision to be rescinded and a full investigation made into this matter because of what could be termed the family connection. Through marriage, the Secretary of State for the Environment is related to the family of the Earl of Scarbrough. To be more precise, the right hon. Gentleman's elder brother, the fourth Viscount Ridley, married the third daughter of the 11th Earl of Scarbrough, who is the sister of the present Earl of Scarbrough, the 12th Earl, who is the applicant in this case.
    I believe that this matter ought to be investigated further. I refer the Minister and the House to the Royal Commission on standards in public life and the memorandum by the Secretary to the Cabinet in 1975 in relation to the question of interests of Ministers. The memorandum says:
    "Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties."
    The document goes on to give further detailed enlightenment on the question of family interests as well, in relation to these matters.
    I believe that the public interest would have been better served, and would be better served now, if the decisions on Maltby commons had been taken by another Minister and not by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has this family connection—I put it no higher than that—with the Earl of Scarbrough.
    I repeat that I would like that order giving permission for the golf course to be built to be rescinded as soon as possible, so that a full investigation can be made into this matter.
    7.25 pm
    The Minister for Environment, Countryside, and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I shall deal with two matters rather quickly. First, I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will not criticise me or my Department, on the ground that we have taken over this matter. On several occasions during the course of this matter, he has been anxious that we should take time, and we have bent over backwards, particularly since the last debate in which he raised the issue, to extend the time for objection as he asked.
    The history in this case is long and tangled. I complimented the hon. Member on the previous occasion on which he raised this on the immense amount of research he had done into it and the fascinating account he then gave of its history, about which hon. Members can read in Hansard. It is right to spend a lot of time, even at the inconvenience of applicants in this case, to try to make sure that no injustice is done.
    In that sense, the hon. Member was a little naughty to say that the previous two Secretaries of State had not taken the decision, as if they had refused to take the decision. He gave some slight indication that there was now one wicked Secretary of State who had come to the wrong conclusion, while two benevolent previous ones had not done so, but it was, in fact, because at that time the mater was still being investigated.
    I can reassure the hon. Gentleman at once on one other matter. I am sure that he in no way wished to imply—because in view of recent rulings he would not have allowed himself to do so — that there was any
    480
    impropriety on the part of the Secretary of State for the Environment. In any event, I can assure him that none of the decisions that have been taken in this matter has been taken by the present Secretary of State. I have myself dealt with the whole matter, first of all as a junior Minister and then, out of courtesy to the hon. Member, when I was lucky enough to be promoted to Minister of State, I thought I should continue. The decision letters are indeed issued under the authority of the Secretary of State, but all the decisions have been taken by me. I have looked back through the files and at no point have the papers gone to the Secretary of State. This is a matter on which the power has been delegated to me. So I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue the matter. If he does, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to defend himself most vigorously, because there really has been no impropriety.
    The decisions that Ministers have to take on questions such as this are hedged about with legal safeguards, and that is part of the problem and the difficulty. Like the hon. Member, in planning matters I quite often find my own constituents are extremely frustrated by the way in which I, as the planning Minister, am unable to enter into campaigns, for example, on local planning issues. I have to say that this is a matter in which I have to stand back, as the appellate authority, and this often irritates my constituents.
    We have something of the same situation here over the question, which I can well understand being frustrating to people—why why the Department of the Environment will not release the papers on which it made the judgment. That was the only judgment that we could legally make, that there was a prima facie claim, which might reasonably be substantiated in law, from my noble Friend Lord Scarbrough, and we had to acknowledge the fact that no one else had put in any other claim. On the legal advice we had, that laid a duty on us to allow the procedure to begin.
    The further legal advice that we have is that we cannot insist on these documents, which are not ours to disclose. being disclosed. It is not for me to say whether they should be disclosed. I have to work within the legal constraints that are on me and I do not have the right to disclose them. But I can understand that it is a difficult point, and I do not know whether I have made the explanation clearly tonight. It is a difficult argument to put across in a common-sense way.
    I have another point to make tonight to the hon. Member, which may in some sense encourage him, although it makes it difficult for me to say very much. We are still in the period within which the decision could be legally challenged. So in some sense, although not the strictly sub judice sense, I have to be careful in what I say tonight.
    There is nothing on this subject that I can teach the hon. Member because he is the expert on it all, but perhaps I could refer once again to the chain of events that brought me to make the decision that I made, with legal advice, last year.
    In the previous debate I put on record a fairly detailed account of the chain of events as seen by my Department from the time that Lord Scarbrough submitted the application under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to enable part of Maltby commons to be used. together with other land, for the purpose of a golf course. At that time a non-statutory local public inquiry into the

    481
    application had been held and the inspector's report had been published. We were waiting for the responses from both the applicant and the objectors to the reference-back letter which had been sent by my Department on 6 November 1984. This has stated that the Secretary of State was disposed to accept the inspector's recommendation that the order be made, subject to modifications.
    I undertook in that earlier debate to give consideration to all representations made following that letter both on the detail of the proposed modifications recommended by the inspector in his report and on the issue of the ownership of the commons. I can assure the House that all those representations were very carefully considered, and that is why we took further time. No one can accuse us of being hasty—the hon. Gentleman did not so accuse us—in reaching our decision, which was issued two years later, on the same date that the limitation order was made. There is still time for a legal challenge of that decision and I must be scrupulously careful to avoid further comment on the case.
    However, it may he helpful if I refer to some of the events which occurred following the previous debate. First, we extended the closing date that we had given for receipt of responses to the "reference back" letter. Originally, it was the 27 February 1984, but we allowed no fewer than three extensions of the time, the last, in response to a letter written on 15 January 1985 by the hon. Member for Rother Valley, to 12 February 1985. We received representations. Among others, there was a request from the Rotherham metropolitan district council that the Department should let the council have copies of various documents, all relating to land title, and the hon. Gentleman has referred to this.
    A letter was sent to the local authority on 13 February 1985 explaining that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not prepared, with the legal advice that he had, to produce those documents. There followed a further request by the council in July 1985 for disclosure, which was again given careful consideration. The reply, sent on 14 October 1985, stated that the Secretary of State was satisfied that he was entitled to find, on the basis of the legal advice that he had received—the inspector's report and the opinion which had been given by Francis Ferris QC to Rotherham council—that the Earl of Scarbrough had sufficient standing to make the application. That letter also explained why we were not prepared to disclose the requested documents.
    The Department also had correspondence during 1985 with the solicitors acting for Lord Scarbrough. We were advised that the modifications to the proposed order as recommended by the inspector, the effect of which would have been to reduce the area of commons over which the limitations would apply, were acceptable to Lord Scarbrough. After careful consideration of all the representations that had been made, the order was eventually made in a decision letter issued on 19 December 1986. Paragraphs 5 to 12 of that letter dealt at some length with the issues that had been raised concerning the standing of Lord Scarbrough to make the application and
    482
    on the question of disclosure of ownership documents. Various other legal matters were raised in the inquiry, including whether limitations and conditions under section 193 can be imposed for the benefit of a new use of common land arising after the coming into force of the Law Property Act 1925. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's views on these other legal issues were set out in a paragraph 13 of the decision letter.
    Section 193 of the 1925 Act does not set out any criteria for the matters that the Secretary of State should take into consideration before deciding to impose any limitation on, and conditions as to, the exercise of the public's right of access for air and exercise. Nor has this issue been tested in the courts. Clearly, he needs to satisfy himself that any limitations applied for are necessary or desirable for preventing an estate, right or interest of a profitable or beneficial nature, belonging to the applicant, from being injuriously affected. Paragraph 17 of the decision letter sets out his opinions on this aspect.
    I understand that, as directed by the Department, Lord Scarbrough has advertised in the local press the fact that the order has been made, but I emphasise that the limitations set out in the order do not come into force until the commencement date of the works of construction for the golf course upon the common land.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister has set out a good scenario of where we are. In the past 10 years, no work has been done on the commons—the land at issue—and a very little on the rest of the golf course, which is on the land owned by the Earl of Scarbrough. The Minister has rightly said that this could still be a matter for judicial review, but that means expense either to individuals or the local authority, which is therefore the public purse. I invite the Minister to agree that the offer made during my previous Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that an independent body such as the Open Spaces Society, which has been dealing with such problems for nearly a century, should see the document, and the evidence that the Secretary of State for the Environment saw, and which gave him grounds to give permission for the limitation order to go ahead.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not within my power to insist on the documents being released—that is the legal advice that we have. It is up to Lord Scarbrough or his agents to show them to the Open Spaces Society or anybody else. I am not sure that it is for me to comment on that. I have no information as to when, if at all, the works are to start and other planning matters may have to be dealt with but are outside the scope of the debate.
    I fear that, particularly in view of the possibility of a legal challenge, it would be unwise of me to comment further. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment, and I congratulate him because this is a classic example of how a local Member of Parliament can pursue the interest of his constituents with considerable scholarship and tenacity. In that personal sense, I am sorry that the outcome of the debate has been so unsatisfactory for him.

  Green Belt (Hertfordshire)
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the green belt in Hertfordshire. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister is responding to the debate, as I know, from first-hand experience, that his commitment to the green belt and preserving our green and pleasant land is unsurpassed. In particular, I welcome the opportunity to bring to his attention the concern of my constituents about the need to preserve our green belt and to give him an opportunity to allay a few of the fears raised by misreporting in the media of recent statements on the rural economy.
  When I made my maiden speech, I said that the one thing that united the inhabitants of the various settlements in my constituency was a desire to remain separated from each other and from London by the green belt. St. Albans is the first distinct and distinctive city out of London. It is also the most beautiful. The centre of St. Albans is built on a hill and from there one can see—to the north, the west, the east and the south—green land and trees. Indeed, the green belt penetrates to the centre of the city, where the old Verulamium site was, and up to the abbey.
  We maintain our character because of the green belt regulations. In 1958, the first proper green belt was established in Hertfordshire and covered a swathe of land to the south of Hemel Hempstead, St. Albans and Hertford. In 1976, that green belt was extended to encompass the whole of St. Albans, Harpenden, Redbourn and Sandridge. Since then, virtually all the land that has not been built upon and is not urbanised has been green belt land. In Hertfordshire as a whole, about 234 square miles, which is about 37 per cent. of the county, is accounted for by green belt land.
  The green belt regulations, despite some fears and doubts, have been vigorously upheld in my area. We have lost land to the M25, but the last major loss of land for housing in my constituency was in Jersey farm, and that was not technically classified as green belt land before it was released for building. I understand from Mr. Briscoe, of Hertfordshire county council, to whom I am indebted, that no major appeals on green belt land have been won by developers since then, and that was over a decade ago.
  In my district, out of literally scores of appeals, through which Mr. Kenworthy, deputy director of planning was kind enough to search, involving applications to develop the green belt land in St. Albans, only one significant decision went in favour of the developers. That was not in my constituency, although it was in the district of St. Albans. The scores of other appeals were all turned down, and the green belt has been preserved.
  I was particularly pleased that the first decision made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, of which I was aware, was to reject an inspector's recommendation for development of Napsbury lane site in the green belt in the south of my constituency. Had that been developed, we would have joined London Colney and effectively become a part of a concrete strip from St. Albans to Hyde park.
  However, despite the Government's excellent record in maintaining the green belt, the pressures are intensifying. In recent years the electrification of the railway line has reduced travelling time to about 18 minutes from St.
  484
  Albans to St. Pancras. We have had an extra lane on the M1, and we had the junction of the M25 and the M1. All these changes make St. Albans a very attractive place to live. When I hear people talking about the Government's failure to invest in the infrastructure, I can only believe that they ignore the evidence of their eyes.
  As a result, St. Albans is something of a boom town, having excellent location and great beauty. The most immediate threat to it is what the press call the application to develop the "golden triangle". My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has rightly insisted that we call this the "green triangle". The site is in his constituency, although it is in the district of St. Albans. My hon. Friend has successfully led the battle at every stage against that threat, particularly in persuading the Department of Transport to reword the very misleading advertisement put out in its name by its agents which suggested that this site was ripe for development and that there might be Government approval for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford succeeded in making it absolutely clear that there was no Government presumption in favour of development of this site. My hon. Friend's position, which I fully endorse, is that this Government believe in the sanctity of the green belt. That springs from our philosophy as a Conservative party committed to conserving all that is best. It is enshrined in the circulars which have been issued by successive Secretaries of State and which have statutory backing.
  The original circular, which is reaffirmed by subsequent circulars, made clear the purposes of green belts. They are threefold:
  "(a) to check the further growth of a large built-up area;"
  That is most important from my point of view and that of my constituents.
  "(b) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;"
  and
  "(c) to preserve the special character of a town."
  That also applies particularly to St. Albans.
  Those original circulars have been reinforced by the Secretary of State's specific reference to the M25 when he wrote to SERPLAN about it before it was complete. He said:
  "The general presumption against development in the green belt is not affected by the M25, and there should continue to be the strongest restraint on development there. The improved access which the motorway provides will enhance the recreational value of the Green Belt."
  He went on to say:
  "The emphasis should be on better use of existing urban land, redevelopment and the return to use of neglected sites, rather than the allocation of new land for development."
  So we are protected from the exceptional pressures which the M25 will bring to bear. My hon. Friend the Minister himself spelled out the incompatibility with green belt policy of many projects for building large new retail developments in the green belt. I welcome his comments. He told the Confederation of British Industry conference:
  "it is difficult to see why major developers and institutional investors should be advancing giant speculative projects for shopping and leisure complexes outside towns that fly full in the face of long established green belt policy—a policy to which this Government is fully committed."
  The Minister also said:
  "I would say that the promoters of some of the wilder schemes have no reason to think they will succeed in breaching green belt policy…It could well be considered irresponsible to attempt to launch these proposals that run

  485
  completely counter to established policy. Those Who pursue them to the point of appeal may find that they have the costs of any inquiry awarded against them."
  We are confident that the golden triangle application which has just gone to appeal this week will in due course be rejected. We are saddened that the appeal will not be heard until February 1988, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend, in responding to this debate, will not be able to pre-empt any decision on that case and will be able only to comment generally because of the possible legal involvement of himself and the Secretary of State.
  There is concern locally that even if my right hon. Friend does, as we are confident that he will at the end of the day, reject any application to develop on this site, we shall face repeated applications from developers putting in slightly altered plans. Local councils will incur heavy burdens of costs in refuting them, and the uncertainty will persist. I welcome my hon. Friend's latest circular entitled "Award of Costs Incurred in Planning Proceedings". The sanction of awarding costs against developers who make repeated appeals will act as a potent deterrent to that practice.
  Despite the Government's impeccable track record, forces have been aroused by the media reports—or misreports—of the Government's statement on the rural economy. I understand that this simply upgrades the importance of environmental considerations to the very extent that it downgrades agricultural considerations. But I would be grateful, as would my constituents, if the Minister would reaffirm the Government's position in those related matters for the benefit of all of us. I know that other hon. Members from Hertfordshire are here today and would like to reaffirm our commitment to the green belt, which is an intrinsic part of the environment in our county.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) for having initiated this debate. If I come, like a green belt, between my hon. Friend and the Minister, it is because my hon. Friend has been such an articulate and powerful spokesman for the green belt in the St. Albans area, and the Minister has been quite the most sensitive and environmentally minded Minister we have had in the Department of the Environment since it was created. That is a happy background against which to consider this most important topic of the green belt, particularly in Hertfordshire.
  My constituency meets the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans more or less at the junction of the M1 and M25 motorways. My area therefore suffers very much from the same pressures as his. The constant pressure from loony Left-wing boroughs in London is driving out their residents to come and seek peace and prosperity in the fields of west Hertfordshire. That is very desirable for those residents but it adds to pressure on housing and business land in our areas.
  One of the difficulties is that the gaps that exist between the various communities are very narrow. The gap between Hemel Hempstead and Abbots Langley on the south-east side, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members of Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is only about half a mile wide. The gap between Hemel Hempstead and the Berkhamsted-Potten End community on the western side
  486
  of Hemel Hempstead is less than a mile wide. The gap between Hemel Hempstead and Redbourn, in the constituency of St. Albans, is even narrower.
  If one accepts the principle, as seems to be the case in successive structure plans in Hertfordshire and elsewhere, that there should be growth around the edges of the freestanding towns in the green belt, one does not need much imagination to realise precisely what will happen in the end if we do not rigidly maintain our green belt boundaries. I am also concerned that, despite the excellent intentions of my hon. Friend in looking again at agricultural policy in the environmental context, this may lead to some weakening of the planning background in areas not covered by the green belt but still within the pressured areas of Hertfordshire.
  There are areas within my constituency of Hertfordshire, West and within the constituency of nny hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans which do not fall within the Green Belt. Some areas are of outstanding natural beauty but other areas do not fall into either of those categories. It is to those areas that the pressure will be most directed. Therefore, my hon. Friend must be clear about the importance of maintaining rural local authority policies on the environment wholly separate from those on the green belt.
  Does my hon. Friend consider the designation of an area of outstanding natural beauty to be as strong a designation as the green belt? In some of our agricultural areas we shall have to fall back on that if we are to ensure that development does not take place. In that context I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the present terms of reference of the Countryside Commission. They mean that the commission must look at the area of outstanding natural beauty, in our area the Chilterns, on a strictly hill contour basis, rather than also incorporating the vistas of those hills which come from the open land around them. The whole concept of areas of outstanding natural beauty should be extended so that the agricultural land surrounding them is considered in the same planning vein.
  I must emphasise the point that my hon. Friend made about costs. The Environment Select Committee of which I was a member reported on the green belt and land for housing at the beginning of this Parliament. It made recommendations about costs and all members of the Select Committee were grateful to the Department for taking them on board so promptly. We have yet to see evidence of how that works in practice. In my area we have had a series of planning applications by developers for land adjacent to Grove road, Station road and Bulbourne road in Tring. In common with the experiences of my hon. Friend, all those applications were rejected on appeal by the Secretary of State. That underlines the fact that the Government have been particularly careful about preserving the green belt.
  However, it has now reached the stage where local authorities find the burden of presenting their case and individual objectors find the burden of repeating their arguments and remarshalling their forces every time so considerable that punitive costs should be awarded when there have been several try-ons for the same site. Without referring to the particular sites, because that would be wrong, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassert his determination to use the costs machinery to deter developers from constantly submitting planning

  487
  applications for areas which clearly are integral parts of the green belt and important for the preservation of the environment.
  The issue of the green belt and future development, alone among the non-social issues on the political agenda, is close to the hearts of my constituents. Those who feel strongest about it are often those living in the centres of the towns or those who have come from the inner cities. They are not necessarily those who live on the edge of the countryside. The green belt acts as an important area for leisure and recreation and as a green lung. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's constant reassertion of the value attached to the political and planning concept of the green belt. That has been one of the great successes of our planning system since the 1947 legislations.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety to preserve the environment, which I share because there is a national park in the High Peak; clearly, it is a major interest of mine. In the north, unemployment is much higher than in the south and when constituents find even a well-paid job in the south, they find it extremely difficult to meet the housing costs and find that there is no rented accommodation. Does he agree that we must do what the Government are planning and both pick some areas which are not particularly environmentally sensitive and allow housing to be built there and do something about the Rent Acts? Will my hon. Friend comment on that balance that we need to strike?
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we should not widen this into a general debate about housing policy. On his narrow point about building houses on bits of the green belt to deal with the problem—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. If the hon. Gentleman pursues that point, I hope that he will pursue the question of building houses on the green belt in Hertfordshire, which is the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Jones: Indeed, to be specific, no matter how many houses are built in St. Albans and West Hertfordshire, they will all sell at high prices, so that is no solution to the problem. The real solution lies in many of the points that my hon. Friend touched on, especially the extra objective that was added to green belt policy by the Government, again in response to the environment Select Committee's report, which was to reinforce the redevelopment of the inner cities by using strategic green-belt policy.
  This is a most important subject and we are fortunate to have this debate tonight. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he can once again reassure us of his determination to preserve the green belt.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. John Powley: I am honoured to follow my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in this debate on the green belt in Hertfordshire.
  The House will know that I have experience as a county councillor and that Hertfordshire played an important part in determining the structure plans which were the responsibility of county councils. At that time I lived in Cambridgeshire and watched with considerable interest how Hertfordshire dealt with its structure plan provision
  488
  and organised its housing and industry planning, particularly its green belt. I had the pleasure to visit that county to see the provision it was making in its structure plan for the green belt so that we in Cambridgeshire could learn from its experience when we made structure plan provisions. That experience has subsequently been of benefit to my home county of Norfolk.
  It has been interesting to see how over the years Hertfordshire has dealt with the sensitive problem of retaining the environment, which everyone wants to retain, and met housing pressures. It has also built roadways through Hertfordshire to improve its road communications. I have seen pressures build up in Norfolk which Hertfordshire experienced 10 years ago and I hope that from watching the Hertfordshire experience, I have been able to contribute to preserving the green belt in Norfolk.
  Whether we talk about Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire or Norfolk, we are all dedicated to retaining the green belt around many of our fine cities. Norwich has a reputation as a fine city. Indeed, it says so on all the signs leading into the city. One cannot retain a fine city—such as St. Albans in Hertfordshire—if the green belt is destroyed by over-development, by over-industrialised development and encroachment on good agricultural land. It is right that the Government should be vitally concerned and they have appointed a Minister with responsibility for the environment. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister is piloting through the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill to improve the environment as part of the green belt which we have experience of in Hertfordshire.
  I could not let the occasion pass without emphasising my considerable concern—
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Before you reach your peroration—I do not want to delay you needlessly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. It is not my peroration, but the hon. Gentleman is delaying me.
  Mr. Hawkins: I did not intend to wake up Labour Members, but I wondered whether my hon. Friend had any thoughts on the problem of farming, which is important in Hertfordshire, as it is in my constituency, particularly when we have surplus production in Europe. What should we do with the land that farmers will no longer be using to produce butter and beef mountains and wine lakes? Does that fit in with my hon. Friend's plans?
  Mr. Powley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, with some validity, but I do not want to trespass on the constituencies of my hon. Friends from Norfolk, which in the main are farming constituencies. My constituency of Norwich is not a farming constituency, and thus I would be trespassing on other people's territory were I to follow that line of thought.
  I conclude by supporting the remarks that my two hon. Friends from Hertfordshire have made, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
  8.2 pm
  The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): This is the second debate in two days on this important subject. However, this debate has a considerable advantage over the one that I answered yesterday because on this occasion I have a full

  489
  two hours for the reply, which will allow me to cover the matter in the necessary detail. My hon. Friends have given me this opportunity because they want me to go into the matter in some depth.
  We have had some powerful contributions to the debate. I have never seen anyone sacrifice the rules of geography to the rules of order more skilfully than my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), who appeared to locate the Norfolk Broads—temporarily, for the purposes of the debate—in Hertfordshire. My hon. Friend kept in order and kept his eye closely on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. His point was well taken that, although there is no green belt immediately round the Norfolk Broads and no geographical relationship with the Norfolk Broads—which is so ably represented, in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), who is on the Front Bench—the issues there are very much the same. There is the Government's commitment to the conservation of our incomparable heritage in the countryside and in its natural beauty.
  The gently dissident voice of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) rightly reminded us of a good phrase used by my right hon. Friend now the Secretary of State for Education in the context of green belt. He said, "Green belt not green museums." We must not turn the villages and small towns, even of our green belts, into colonial Williamsburgs, to be looked at by the tourists pouring out of charabancs. That is not in our best interests. We want living communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) referred to the important circular that we put out last year and the advice that we repeated in the recent circular that, for example, redundant farm buildings should be sympathetically redesigned for the kind of local employment needs which there may often be, even in green belt. It is better to have those buildings properly re-used than have them lying derelict as eyesores and dumping grounds.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that redundant farm buildings present the same opportunity for small businesses today that the old Nissen huts presented small businesses that started up after the war? Not only is that helpful on the fringe, it is the seed-bed of much of our future economic growth.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. In my urban constituency an important role is played by small businesses under the viaducts and railway arches, such as one sees near Waterloo station, where often small firms have started off and gone on to greater things.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) paid a fine and moving tribute to that beautiful city. I have just re-read—as it is necessary to do occasionally to reinforce one's views about lawyers—"Bleak House", which takes place in and around St. Albans and ends in a dramatic chase on foot from London to St. Albans and back. People were tougher in those days. That book reminds us, as my hon. Friend did, of the contiguity of St. Albans to the great urban centre, and therefore the importance of ensuring that fine city is protected by a proper green belt. It could so easily have become swamped in urban sprawl, in a way that is essential it should not.
  My hon. Friend paid tribute to the stalwart defence of that green belt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have undertaken. My hon.
  490
  Friend referred to the Napsbury lane site application, which we turned down. He then referred to one of the issues which is coming up, and he fairly absolved me from any duty to comment on it tonight. However, whether it is a green triangle or a golden triangle, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has made certain that no Secretary of State will be other than well aware of the importance of any proposed development in that area through the green belt.
  At the instance of the local authority, that inquiry has been referred, but that inquiry will and must be extremely thorough. My hon. Friends the Ministers for St. Albans and for Hertfordshire, West referred to the M25 being built and the fact that it was said at the time that the M25 was not to be used as a Trojan horse for development all around London. That will be one of the material considerations of the inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford, and those whom he represents, will be giving evidence to that inquiry in due course.
  I welcome the debate tonight because it gives me another opportunity—which is necessary when things are being misinterpreted—to hammer at the truth until it is understood. I can explain once again what we are doing with the change to the agricultural dimension of rural planning and, perhaps even more important. what we are not doing. What we are not saying—here I have to disappoint housebuilders and some of the landowners—is that the countryside is up for grabs; that we are not interested in green land, because the only protection for green land is its use as agricultural land.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) was a distinguished councillor and adviser to the Association of District Councils at one time. He knows as well as I do that the planning system is the basic protection. Our circular said that in today's world, where we are living with surpluses in many commodities and where the taxpayer and consumer are having to pay for those surpluses, it is irrational if we say that we do not need development, to steer that development away from the best agricultural land on to the worst agricultural land—overriding the ordinary considerations of development versus environment, which in agricultural areas will have agriculture as an important local industry and one of the material considerations in any decision on development versus non-development.
  In many cases, particularly in cases where there has been efficient and high-productivity farming, the remaining unimproved land is often of great environmental and ecological interest. If there is a nice flat field which has been in cereals or rye grass for 20 years—and will, sadly, have lost any ecological interest—we should not be steering the development away from that on to the undrained water meadow where the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service man may, in the old days, have said, "What you need here is a drainage grant to make this grow more cereal surpluses".
  That is all that the circular says and no more. Now we must look at development versus environment head on. The environmental notations in the local plans are as strong as ever they were. It is important to maintain the countryside. If there is, as there sometimes will be, environmentally satisfactory land use other than farming, we must not steer away from it in order to protect an agricultural output that we do not need.
  The previous debate that I answered was about a golf course, and I was interested recently to see work by the

  491
  London Wildlife Trust showing that many golf courses round London also manage very well as wildlife centres. It is possible to imagine that, even in the green belt, land can be used for recreation or other purposes which may make farming impossible but be environmentally satisfactory. We have what could be an attractive opportunity to bring a little more income into the countryside and make more room for carefully managed recreation if it fits environmentally. We should not miss that opportunity simply because of an outdated overriding imperative about agricultural production. That is what we were saying—no more and no less.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I greatly welcome much of what my hon. Friend says. Although I may appear to be pressing for building to some extent, I strongly agree with protecting the environment. However, in the past I have had cases of the barn, as the Minister mentioned, that could be converted into a nice home, and so on, for which the planning application has been turned down. Will the appeals procedure be changed to reflect the new approach? I have had cases of triangular pieces of farming land, too small for dairy farming and too near a town for sheep because of the dog problem, which have gone through the whole planning gamut but have got nowhere. Unless we change the appeals system, what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying will not happen.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend raises the problem of another of the important environmental notations—the special protection given in national parks, in one of which his constituency lies. I know that on occasion he has had reason to criticise the High Peak national park. The issues there, when one is trying to manage land surrounded by enormous pressures of population, are a little different even from green belt land. I am not saying that every decision has been right in the past. We must be sensitive to keeping the communities there alive, too, but that is a slightly more specialist subject than the ordinary management of green belt. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, and it is vital that there should be real jobs and real communities in the national parks. If we stray too far into the national park debate I may be rebuked by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not continue down that line.
  I see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry is anxious to pursue his own debate so I shall make two more swift points. If I continue at length he may become disgruntled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) made an important point about structure planning that has lain behind some of the anxieties that have been expressed in recent weeks about our commitment to green belt and wider countryside protection. Our discussion paper says that in future we shall go for single tier plans run by the district councils, by the development control authorities. Some people have asked what will happen to, for example, the protection of green belt. Until now general policies have been set out in structure plans. Let me make it clear once again, as I made it clear to the Council for the Protection of Rural England last week, that we have no intention of surrendering the proper strategic planning on top of the unitary plans. That
  492
  will still be done by counties, or perhaps by consortia of counties, and will be built into the district plans which the districts will hold.
  However, we cannot put up with the way in which structure plans have now become immensely complicated. One famous case contained 252 so-called policies, which is nonsense. Planning of that detail should be done by the district. However, there is a proper place for strategic guidance and strategic planning which will still come from county planners or a consortia of counties, as happens in the SERPLAN area of East Anglia, but they must then be built in and have their statutory course from the district unitary plans. I hope that we can set that red herring at rest—if that is what one does to a red herring.
  The conservation of the green belt rests, as both my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans and for Hertfordshire, West said on getting the other side of the equation right—that is, the re-use of the brown land, land which has been used before and can be used again. That is vital. It is encouraging that since I have been in the Department of the Environment much more housing is being built on re-used land than we ever believed would be the case in the past.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is not here—indeed, no member of the Labour party is here, nor of the Liberal party—but he made a speech which disturbs me greatly. Perhaps I should not say this because I know that it will make him cross. It would have been a rather courageous speech in the sense that it turned policy upside down. It was made to the National House Building Council, so it may have been a popular speech at the time. The hon. Gentleman said that we were over-exaggerating the possibilities of building on brown land and it was probably right to extend building into green areas and even into green belt.
  I was deeply disturbed by that. That seemed to me to show the beginnings of a commitment by the Labour party to move away from proper countryside protection and, above all, to move away from the pressure to re-use land which we have been succeeding in getting. If we let the housebuilders think that those pressures will come on, they will go back to the old business of trying to apply for the earlier sites again and again, whatever we do about costs—although we can do something about that. I greatly regret that speech.
  Mr. Lilley: May I congratulate my hon. Friend as I had intended to do earlier, on his decision over Tillingham hall. It brought great relief not just in Essex but in Hertfordshire as well that the Government clearly will not allow massive or major new developments in green belt land, but are ensuring that it will occur in the already urbanised land.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant, but the debate is about Hertfordshire and we must not develop it into a general debate about the green belt. Many hon. Members, had they been aware that such a debate was contemplated, may have wished to take part. The House is debating the green belt in Hertfordshire.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That was an extremely wise decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many more Conservative Members would have wanted to take part if the debate had been wider. I do not know whether any Labour Members would have wanted to do so. Tillingham hall is not in Hertfordshire, but it is fair to say that the clarity of the

  493
  decision, which rests four square on green belt criteria, should be of consolation and encouragement to those defending the green belt in Hertfordshire. They would be defending it in the Norfolk Broads if there was any there.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends for giving us the opportunity once again to reaffirm our commitment. It is particularly satisfactory to have a debate introduced by what I think, without flattering him, I can call one of our principal free market philosophers. He wrote with Sam Brittan a book which has been a text book for many of us. If he is willing to endorse the necessary constraints to a market, as there must be necessary constraints to markets, in certain social and planning activities, it gives us all great hope that the commitment to green belt ranges throughout the Conservative party. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to endorse it.

  Regional Assistance (West Yorkshire)
  8.19 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome this opportunity, which I had not expected, to call attention to the effects of regional policy on investment in West Yorkshire, especially my constituency.
  The textile industry has been through hard times in the past few years, but companies now involved have a bright future. There is lots of investment in the traditional industries, and we have new ones. Last week, I had an opportunity to visit the British yarn show in Leicester where many of my companies were exhibiting. I have no doubt that we shall be able to sweep the board in the face of Italian manufacturers when the yarns get through to designers.
  We have a tremendous amount of investment in my constituency now. Traditional industries are re-equipping with high technology machinery to stand with the old, and we have new factories. In the past year, we have had a machine tool company and a company which makes curtains for a big store establish factories. A third factory is nearing completion. We have also had investment of some £18 million in a pets food factory, 50 per cent. of the production of which goes to export. We are hoping to hear soon of further investment which will create a new factory and new jobs in an area which desperately needs them.
  About £60 milliom is being invested in my small part of West Yorkshire. We have investment of £40 million in a new hospital, which is creating jobs for builders and in cement, steel and bricks. It will provide further jobs when it is fitted out.
  I welcome assisted area status. It was not available to Batley and Spen when I was elected. I welcome the Government's changes to travel-to-work areas which enabled help to be given to many of my companies.
  8.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and congratulate her on getting this short additional Adjournment debate to draw attention to the importance of regional policy in her constituency.
  I confirm that, since 1979, it has been Government policy to concentrate assistance provided under the Industry Acts on helping areas of greatest need. The map was redrawn in 1984 to exclude large parts of the country and concentrate assistance on areas in the north, the west midlands or the south-west where we knew there were substantial problems and genuine need because of industrial decline or other reasons.
  The fact that my hon. Friend has been able to record an increase in investment in her constituency is eloquent testimony to the effectiveness of that policy. She will know that it is based on travel-to-work areas, which are the most sensitive instrument for measuring unemployment. among other things. Like me, she will benefit in part of her constituency from being part of the Bradford travel-to-work area. That has allowed her to obtain assisted area status for a portion of her constituency in which there has been substantial development.
  In the constituency which my hon. Friend so admirably represents, she has several traditional textile industries. She will share with me a feeling of great satisfaction that,

  495
  after the long lean years of the recent past, there are now substantial improvements in textile orders. The British textile and clothing industry now ranks fourth in the national league table of manufacturing industries and last year it produced record exports for the fifth successive year.
  The textile industry has been able to diversify out of traditional clothing to many industrial uses which provide an entirely new field for endeavour. I trust that the companies in the constituency which my hon. Friend so outstandingly represents will also benefit from those developments.
  I am aware that there are applications before me for further assistance for a certain company which wants to
  496
  locate in my hon. Friend's constituency. I assure her that they will receive early consideration. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
  It has been a privilege to take part in this brief debate about the importance of regional policy in West Yorkshire, especially Batley and Spen. I look forward to many years of the representation that my hon. Friend has provided for a constituency which, until she took over, was most feebly represented in the House. We now know that she has been able to deal with the issues that have confronted her constituency in a wholly admirable manner, and I wish her well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eight o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Highway Routes (Inquiries)
  Highway Routes (Inquiries)
  Drink-Driving (Campaign)
  Drink-Driving (Campaign)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Sunderland-Carlisle Road
  Sunderland-Carlisle Road
  Harbours (Dangerous Substances)
  Harbours (Dangerous Substances)
  Slow-moving Vehicles
  Slow-moving Vehicles
EMPLOYMENT
  Pay Rates
  Pay Rates
  Trade Union Reform
  Trade Union Reform
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Restart
  Restart
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Earnings
  Earnings
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Social Security Fraud
  Social Security Fraud
  Autocrime
  Autocrime
  Private Prisons
  Private Prisons
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Police Computers
  Police Computers
  Fraud Investigation Squad
  Fraud Investigation Squad
  Traffic Police (Privatisation)
  Traffic Police (Privatisation)
  Police (Freemasonry)
  Police (Freemasonry)
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Police (Numbers)
  Police (Numbers)
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
  Police Forces (Control)
  Police Forces (Control)
  Racial Incidents
  Racial Incidents
  Detoxification Centres
  Detoxification Centres
  Alcohol and Drug Abuse
  Alcohol and Drug Abuse
  Drink Driving Offences
  Drink Driving Offences
  Missing Children
  Missing Children
  Police Forces (Civilianisation)
  Police Forces (Civilianisation)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Theft
  Theft
  News International Plant, Wapping
  News International Plant, Wapping
  Police Officers (Ethnic Minority Recruitment)
  Police Officers (Ethnic Minority Recruitment)
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Rape
  Rape
  Draize Eye Irritancy Test
  Draize Eye Irritancy Test
  Police (Wrongful Acts)
  Police (Wrongful Acts)
  Mrs. Cynthia Payne
  Mrs. Cynthia Payne
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ministerial Meeting (Bonn)
  Ministerial Meeting (Bonn)
WALES
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Football Stadiums
  Football Stadiums
  Welsh Health Promotion Authority
  Welsh Health Promotion Authority
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Sixth Form Students
  Sixth Form Students
  Students (Full-time Education)
  Students (Full-time Education)
  Local Education Authorities (Reception Classes)
  Local Education Authorities (Reception Classes)
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Her Majesty's Inspectors
  Her Majesty's Inspectors
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Alzheimer's Disease
  School Librarians
  School Librarians
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid-trade Expenditure
  Aid-trade Expenditure
  "Women and Development"
  "Women and Development"
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Gibrepair Shipyard, Gibraltar
  Gibrepair Shipyard, Gibraltar
  Palestine Police Force (Pensions)
  Palestine Police Force (Pensions)
  Expatriate Public Servants (Pensions)
  Expatriate Public Servants (Pensions)
DEFENCE
  DROPS
  DROPS
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Winston and Ritchie Camps
  Winston and Ritchie Camps
  Exports
  Exports
  Gibrepair Limited
  Gibrepair Limited
  Libya (Raid)
  Libya (Raid)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  War Medals
  War Medals
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Trident
  Trident
  United States Forces
  United States Forces
PRIME MINISTER
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Teaching Company Scheme
  Teaching Company Scheme
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Vegetable Oilseeds and Oils
  Vegetable Oilseeds and Oils
  Libya (Air Raid)
  Libya (Air Raid)
ENERGY
  Departmental Computers
  Departmental Computers
  British Coal (Houses)
  British Coal (Houses)
  Coal Liquefaction
  Coal Liquefaction
  National Energy Management Conference
  National Energy Management Conference
ENVIRONMENT
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  London Residuary Body (Transfer of Assets)
  London Residuary Body (Transfer of Assets)
  Crown Suppliers
  Crown Suppliers
  Local Government Act 1974
  Local Government Act 1974
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Housing (Hampshire)
  Housing (Hampshire)
  Regional Development (North-West)
  Regional Development (North-West)
  Local Government Act 1986
  Local Government Act 1986
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Local Authorities (Housing Subsidy)
  Local Authorities (Housing Subsidy)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Police Inquiries (Seized Material)
  Police Inquiries (Seized Material)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Relocation
  Relocation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wheat Prices
  Wheat Prices
  Beef and Butter (Bradford)
  Beef and Butter (Bradford)
THE ARTS
  Children's Librarians
  Children's Librarians
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Equity Plans
  Personal Equity Plans
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Married Man's Allowance
  Married Man's Allowance
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Earnings Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
  World Debt
  World Debt
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Pay Variations
  Pay Variations
  Asset Sales
  Asset Sales
  Privatised Companies
  Privatised Companies
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Share Ownership
  Share Ownership
  Banks (Supervision)
  Banks (Supervision)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Retired People
  Retired People
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Economic Policy Co-ordination
  Economic Policy Co-ordination
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Budget
  Budget
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Higher Rate Income Tax
  Higher Rate Income Tax
  FIMBRA
  FIMBRA
  Unemployment (Cost)
  Unemployment (Cost)
  Output Statistics
  Output Statistics
  Land and Buildings (Sales)
  Land and Buildings (Sales)
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Defence Exports
  Defence Exports
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Foreign Consignee Status
  Foreign Consignee Status
  Securities and Investment Board
  Securities and Investment Board
  Leyland-DAF
  Leyland-DAF
  Internal Market Council
  Internal Market Council
  Extraterritoriality
  Extraterritoriality
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Restart Programme
  Restart Programme
  Machinery Investment
  Machinery Investment
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Inverclyde Initiative
  Inverclyde Initiative
  Remands
  Remands
SCOTLAND
  Schoolchildren (Learning Difficulties)
  Schoolchildren (Learning Difficulties)
  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Restart
  Restart
  Disabled People (Assistance)
  Disabled People (Assistance)
  Caledonian-MacBrayne (Ferry)
  Caledonian-MacBrayne (Ferry)
  Unemployment (Economic Implications)
  Unemployment (Economic Implications)
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
  Theft
  Theft
  Prisoners (Police Stations)
  Prisoners (Police Stations)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  Health and Social Services (Capital Expenditure)
  Health and Social Services (Capital Expenditure)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Local Office Staffs
  Local Office Staffs
  Benefits
  Benefits
  NHS (Pay Comparability)
  NHS (Pay Comparability)
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health Services (Statistics)
  Health Services (Statistics)
  Health Care (North-West)
  Health Care (North-West)
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Asthma (Deaths)
  Asthma (Deaths)
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Treatment (Foetal Tissue)
  Treatment (Foetal Tissue)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Private Hospitals (Admissions)
  Private Hospitals (Admissions)
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Health Authorities
  Health Authorities
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephones, (Interception of Calls)
  Telephones, (Interception of Calls)
  Members' Group Accident Insurance
  Members' Group Accident Insurance
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Trident D5 Missiles
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many missiles they propose to purchase for the Trident project, and at what cost.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the actual number of Trident D5 missiles which will be purchased from the United States is classified. The cost of these items amounts to some 12 per cent. of the overall project estimate
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he explain what is now the criterion of the Government for deciding the size of the deterrent? Is it simply the ability to inflict unacceptable damage or is it also related to the increasing size of the Soviet nuclear stockpile?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, essentially, for deterrence to be effective, it must be able to threaten if necessary what a potential enemy values most and inflict on him a level of damage which he would find unacceptable.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will the noble Lord investigate the cost and probable delivery date of the much inferior weapons ordered by the SDP?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, they have not ordered them yet and I do not suppose they ever will be able to. But certainly the point which my noble friend makes is valid: they are inferior.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be so kind as to take the matter seriously, is it not the case that the consequence of what the Government are about to do is to create in this country an ability to inflict damage which is even greater than that possessed already? Is the noble Lord aware that since we can already destroy the enemy five times over, there is absolutely no point in this waste of money?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's views are familiar to us all.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I may, I should like an answer. Is there no answer?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the Trident missile be targeted on Soviet towns or on Soviet missiles?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that that is not the sort of question that will be answered from this Box.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, so that we can get the balance right, is the Minister aware that some of us believe it is essential that Britain should have its own independent nuclear deterrent? All we hope is that Trident will work. May we have an assurance that it does?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I can assure the noble Lord that when it arrives it will work.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord not understand that the question from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney is a matter of the utmost urgency and importance, not only to the people of this country, but to the people of the world? Will he give the House the courtesy of an answer to the question as to whether the Government believe that it is necessary, in order to pursue their policy of deterrence, to be able to obliterate the human race five times rather than once?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the important point is that through our possessing a credible deterrent there will be no need for the sort of scenario which the noble Lord suggests will arise.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, how can the noble Lord assure the House that Trident II will work when it has not yet been tested in the sea-launch mode? Also, have the Government noticed that the Budget Office of the United States Congress is considering depriving the Administration of the entire Trident II programme in view of the 169 billion dollar internal deficit and forcing it to go back to Trident I?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that all those who are concerned with the procurement of this weapon system will do their utmost to ensure that it works, and I have no doubt that it will.

Hospital Beds: Statistics
3.4 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many hospital beds have been cut since 1979; and in how many regions that reduction has exceeded 10 per cent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, between 1979 and 1985 bed numbers were reduced by 36,182, or 10 per cent., to 325,488 beds. In-patient cases rose by 953,692, or 17 per cent, to 6,353,812 in the same period. Bed numbers fell by more than 10 per cent. in six regions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She has revealed the fact that 36,000 fewer beds are now in service than in 1979—this at a time when, except for periods of industrial action, waiting lists are at an all-time high. Does she not consider this a very disturbing situation, particularly for the elderly since we now have 20 per cent. more people over the age of 75 than we had in 1979? Is this really fulfilling responsibilities to the community?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, between 1978 and 1985, thanks to the greater efficiency that this Government have demanded from the NHS and the extra resources provided, the number of elderly in-patient cases rose by 60.5 per cent. and elderly out-patient cases by 40.7 per cent. Services in the-community have been developed to help old people to live in their own homes, as most of them wish to do. Between 1978 and 1985, the number of elderly people treated by district nurses rose by 28 per cent.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the increase in resources for the National Health Service mentioned by my noble friend, can she explain how it is that the number of beds in hospitals has had to be reduced?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, reasons for change include the shift from unsuitable long-stay institutions to more suitable care in the community involving the loss since 1979 of 1,500 beds, 13,000 mental handicap and 9,500 mental illness beds. There have also been changes in technique involving less open surgery and more day treatment. Other factors are efficient use of resources, including high turnover rates, as well as care in the community policies for long-stay patients.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is not the effect of this reduction that patients are often kept waiting with their bags packed for weeks on end before they are admitted and that when admitted they are often sent home again because the bed is still occupied? Even if they are admitted and treated, are they not then frequently discharged when still too frail and at a time when friends and relatives are not ready to receive them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the Government have recently instituted a waiting list fund. The project has been funded and the action that health authorities already have in hand should ensure that many more patients receive the treatment they need more quickly. The most worrying excessive waiting times will be reduced.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Thames regions alone have lost 15,000 beds, which means on average a 14 per cent. cut, would the noble Baroness comment on the question put to her that a large number of people are not only waiting to get in but are also being pushed out? Would she comment on the suggestion that too many patients are being moved out too quickly and therefore having to be readmitted? Surely this is not efficiency?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the waiting list and the national position, the latest
324
figures show that the size of the list remained stable between March 1985 and 1986, despite a small rise in the size of the list in the six months to March. Waiting times continue to fall. First indications are that there was a small further rise in the six months to September 1986, although waiting times remain fairly constant. This position underlines the necessity for the fund which my right honourable friend has announced and which we hope will have a very marked effect on waiting times and lists.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the areas affected by bed reduction are mostly those areas affected by RAWP? If that be the case, should we not be pleased that RAWP is now under review?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the regions were Yorkshire, minus 10·5 per cent; North-West Thames, minus 14·6 per cent; South-East Thames, minus 14·5 per cent; South-West Thames, minus 15·4 per cent.; South-Western, minus 10·3 per cent.; and Mersey, minus 16 per cent. My noble friend will be aware that regions not covered by the present national RAWP formula will be helped by a special fund which has been announced.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while accepting that it may well be wise to discharge many patients from some older institutions into the community for community care, will the noble Baroness accept that the back-up support services for that community care are far from being provided?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord may be aware that a review of community care is being undertaken at the moment by Sir Roy Griffiths. It would be unfortunate if I pre-empted the results of his review.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that in an organisation as large and complex as the National Health Service, it will always be possible to select statistics that make it look inefficient as well as statistics showing that it works well? Will she further accept that for the Opposition to select such statistics is legitimate and in some ways healthy because it keeps her on her toes? Finally, will she accept that what most of us look at is the number of people treated rather than the number of beds in wards? In that regard, she is doing very well and should keep on at it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, speaking as someone who is practically toeless by now and in need of urgent treatment, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I agree entirely that it is people who matter, not furniture.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister agree that if community care is to be the preferred way of dealing with some patients, it would be sensible to start up community care services before hospitals begin to be emptied? What has happened to the numbers of home helps who are absolutely crucial to any effective community care?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a bit wide of the Question, if I may say so. However, above all, our policy is not to put people out of beds in institutions until better alternative care is ready for them. At the moment, due to our policy of care in the community, there are approximately 10,000 empty beds available in mental hospitals.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister inquire into the possibility of expanding district nurse services? Those people perform a very valuable service which results in many people not having to enter hospital.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the number of doctors and dentists has increased. There are 16 per cent. more GPs, for example, and the number of nurses has increased. There are 11 per cent. more district nurses and 18.6 per cent. more health visitors than there were in 1979.

Solicitors: Racial Origins
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether this year's solicitors' certificates asked for racial origins and, if so, why.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, in view of the welcome appearance of daffodils on both Front Benches, I ought perhaps to begin this Answer by disclaiming for myself any Welsh ancestry!
I am informed by the Law Society that this year's practising certificate application form had attached to it a question, the answer to which was not compulsory, relating to the ethnic origin of the applicant. The question reflected the Law Society's commitment to ensuring equal opportunity within the profession.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for answering the Question. I understand from the Law Society that he is not personally responsible. However, are the Government aware that there are two sides to the question of ethnic monitoring such as that carried out this year among solicitors? On one side there is the positive assistance given to those wishing to ensure that there is no discrimination on ethnic grounds. I believe that all your Lordships would agree with that position.
On the other side of the exercise is the possibility that the use of ethnic monitoring of this kind can help to fragment British society along the lines of ethnic origin of parents and even colour of skin. Those two sides must be balanced and the dangers of the latter case must be recognised and balanced against the positive side which I have mentioned and which can be used to prevent discrimination.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging that I do not speak for the Law Society. I am aware that there are two sides to
326
all such questions. The professional bodies, in their desire to eliminate racial discrimination, work very closely with the CRE (the Commission for Racial Equality) and with NACRO (the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders). So far as I am aware, the other side has so far been represented by Mr. Enoch Powell.
Lord Mishcon: Who, my Lords, I do not represent in this House! Will the noble and learned Lord confirm, if it is within his knowledge, that those representing minority groups in this country have applauded the care of the Law Society in these matters and therefore the marshalling of statistics? Is he aware that the Law Society has contributed to a project to look into those very matters, in the sum of £50,000? Will the noble and learned Lord kindly take it from me that I have the honour to be the patron of that project?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was aware of the generous help given by the Law Society to this very worthy project, though I was not aware, I must confess, that the noble Lord was its patron. I congratulate the noble Lord on having that post.
I believe that on the whole the action of both legal professional bodies has met with approval and I think it is probably the only way in which it can be ascertained how racial discrimination may be eleminated. I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that one may argue the other way. With some names it is of course easy to recognise at once a person of Moslem or perhaps Jewish origin. However, a name like Smith might mean anything.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that the daffodils on the Labour Front Bench become them much better than the roses which they recently donned?
Te Lord Chancellor: My Lords, were it not for the fact that my noble friend on his Front Bench is also wearing one, I think I should be disposed to agree that daffodils become Wales and roses should be the emblem of England!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that roses are in fact the emblem of these Benches?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I again thank the noble and learned Lord for the Answer which he has given. I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of that Answer as regards positive attempts to eliminate racial discrimination. I deplore the suggestion that those who are concerned about the fragmentation of British society according to ethnic origins extend far wider than the noble and learned Lord's former colleague, Mr. Enoch Powell.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is so eager to dissociate himself from my former colleague. All I wished to indicate was that the persons who adopt that point of view do not represent majority opinion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not also the case that the proportion of those from the ethnic minorities

327
coming to the Bar is also increasing considerably? In regard to the floral references from the Woolsack, may I assure the noble and learned Lord that we do not propose to make the wearing of the daffodil compulsory?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, from my visits to Cumberland Lodge and other places where students foregather, I have every reason to believe the number of those of ethnic origins who aspire to the Bar and are called is on the increase. But it will be St. Patrick's day for me!

Mobility Allowance: Eligibility
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give further consideration to representations from persons who are denied mobility allowance who suffer the dual handicap of deafness and blindness and are unable to travel without constant help.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, some deaf and blind people do qualify for mobility allowance where they suffer from balance problems and we have expanded guidance to examining doctors to ensure this fact is fully considered when determining eligibility. Proposals by the Disability Alliance to extend mobility allowance to deaf and blind people among others have been under consideration for some time. We are also committed to a comprehensive review of benefits for disabled people when we have the results of a current major survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which is a little more hopeful than perhaps I expected from her. May I make a strong plea that the regulations be looked at seriously? The number of people who suffer from blindness and deafness is small and quite obviously, because of the success of the rubella vaccination scheme, that number will not substantially increase.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is estimated that about 2,000 deaf-and-blind people are within the age limits for mobility allowance but the number who have already qualified for the allowance is not available. I mentioned in my original reply the steps we are taking to review the whole situation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Baroness says the these proposals have been under consideration for some time. Can she go a little further and say for how long, and when some resolution might be arrived at? Is there any real reason why mobility allowance should be confined to those who are self-propelled when those who cannot be self-propelled are often in even greater difficulties?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, reliable informa-tion about the numbers, circumstances and needs of disabled people is required before a comprehensive review of the benefits provided specifically for them can be carried out. The review will take place when the results of the OPCS survey become available.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her sympathetic reply. Can she give some idea of the timescale of this review? Surely it is a fact that the sooner one puts a date on the expectation of the result of the review, the sooner one is likely to get it. Can amendments be made by regulations or would there have to be a change in legislation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the actual timing will depend on the progress that is made.
Lord Molloy: My Lords. is the noble Baroness aware that she gave a very encouraging reply to my noble friend's Question? After being neglected by previous governments, it now looks as if the blind and the disabled mentioned in the Question will receive some attention.
Is the noble Baroness prepared, as has been done in the past, to consult voluntary organisations such as the British Limbless Ex-Servicemens Association, which also covers the blind, and various other voluntary organisations, which can be of great assistance, in carrying out what I think she intends to do in helping the categories mentioned in my noble friend's Question?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I appreciate the very large problems of deaf-and-blind people in getting around. When the review is undertaken, I am sure that all relevant bodies will have the opportuntiy to express themselves.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords it is not exactly a problem of mobility but one of being escorted. Would it not be possible for the escort to travel free on public transport?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that novel suggestion.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is looking at numbers—I think it is true to say that the department has the greatest difficulty in assessing numbers—would it be possible to work in conjunction with Sense, the organisation that is primarily concerned with young people who suffer the dual handicap of blindness and deafness? I feel sure that it would be able to give her much more up-to-date figures than any other organisation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I did say that it was estimated that there were about 2,000 deaf and blind people; and 465,000 disabled people are currently in receipt of the allowance. The annual cost of the allowance is around £500 million.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Pilotage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill and the Nightwear (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 will be taken.

Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is promoted by Hampshire County Council, supported by New Forest District Council and enthusiastically supported by Lyndhurst Residents Association, which numbers some 1,200 people out of the limited population of that attractive village. It proposes the construction of a bypass round Lyndhurst of approximately one-and-three-quarter miles in length with a single carriageway each way, well landscaped, and with four underpasses either for human or for animal use. It will serve, as I am sure those familiar with the area will immediately recognise, both traffic on the A.35, which is the Southampton-Christchurch Road, and the A.337 Cadnam-Lymington Road, the traffic on the latter now being the heavier of the two.
Your Lordships will hardly believe it but the need for a bypass of Lyndhurst has been recognised for very nearly 50 years. There was discussion about it before the war. There have been two public inquiries and there has been immense consultation with all concerned. Whatever else the county council can be accused of, it cannot be accused of indecent haste.
Anyone who knows the area will know, too, the appalling congestion which spoils life in this attractive large village or small town. Lyndhurst has a population of 3,000. The traffic is solid through most of the day. It has had to be operated on a one-way system which itself makes life difficult in the town. It would be impossible to find anybody in Lyndhurst who was not only not anxious to have the bypass constructed but was not perhaps becoming increasingly impatient over the delay in constructing it.
That is the background. Anything touching the New Forest is, of course, rightly regarded by your Lordships and other people as a sensitive subject. It is one of the loveliest areas in the country and one which I have known since I attended a preparatory school on the edge of it—a year or two ago, I must admit to your Lordships! The matter is being handled by the local authority, which is, after all, responsible for the whole county, with some sensitivity. For example, I refer to the use of land. I do not want to weary your Lordships with statistics but it will perhaps put the matter a little in perspective if I mention that, for the purpose of constructing the bypass, altogether 23.6 acres of land will be required, of which the greater, but not the whole, part comes from the land of the forest and about 4.4 acres from private property.
330
Of the land required for construction of the bypass, 10.6 acres will be required permanently from the forest. A further 8.6 acres will not be required once the work has been done. As the verderers of the New Forest have indicated that they would prefer to be given land in lieu of the land taken rather than receive monetary compensation, the county council has acquired 18 acres of land which will be handed over to the verderers and incorporated in the New Forest. Consequently, though there may be argument as to how the land relates to other land, on a calculation simply of acreage the net effect will be that, once the work is finished, there will be a net increase, since 18 acres are being handed over and only 10.6 acres retained for the bypass, of about 74 acres of land which will be incorporated into the forest. I think your Lordships will feel that that shows perhaps better than anything else the sensitive way in which the Hampshire County Council has sought to handle the matter.
I understand that there are no arguments against the need for a bypass. I do not think that such arguments have been expressed anywhere. However, there are two points which I understand will be taken in your Lordships' House and which have certainly been taken outside. It may save time if I touch on these quickly now, though I will seek your Lordships' permission to deal with them when I wind up the debate a little later. The first of the two questions concerns the exact route chosen for the bypass. This is the outcome of prolonged consultation and discussion, and it amounts to a compromise.
The inhabitants of Lyndhurst would like to see the bypass further out into the forest, taking the traffic further away from them and their homes. As I understand it, the verderers of the New Forest—and they will, of course, speak for themselves—would like to see the bypass actually inside Lyndhurst and not occupying or intruding on any land of the forest. I need only say that it would do a small town extremely little good to offer it a bypass and then provide that the bypass simply cut off one part of the town from the other. Therefore, there is a clash of interests and there is no particular reason why one should not comment on that.
By drawing a line fairly close to the town and not obtruding to any great extent into forest land, the county council has tried to meet to the greatest possible extent the substance of both the competing viewpoints. I am not sure that your Lordships will want to go into great detail as to the exact route chosen. I need only say that it is the result of long consultation, long and expert discussion, and a genuine attempt to achieve a compromise.
The only other major issue which I understand is likely to be raised is that it is apparently the view of the verderers of the New Forest that, instead of proceeding, as the county council has decided to do, by way of a Private Bill in Parliament, they should have operated under the machinery of the New Forest Act 1949, under which the matter goes to what is called the Verderers Court and in the event of disagreement it is submitted to arbitration.
There are a number of fundamental—in my view, conclusive—objections to following that course. In the first place, it is plainly necessary to fence the bypass, as

331
all fast or major roads in the New Forest are fenced, for the very obvious reason that those attractive ponies, the delightful animals which frequent the place, will run on to the road and will cause accidents as well as imperilling their own lives if the roads are not fenced. It is a fact that the major roads in the New Forest which carry fast traffic are fenced.
I understand—and, more importantly, the county council understands—that it is not possible in the 1949 Act to provide for fencing of the bypass. It is the general law that, without Parliamentary approval, roads in the New Forest cannot be fenced. Therefore, the first argument for proceeding by way of a Private Bill is that only in that way can legal authority be obtained to fence the bypass when it is built.
It has been objected that we could produce a Private Bill just to do that and operate the Verderers Court procedure under the 1949 Act for the whole of the rest of the proposal. That proposition does not stand up to analysis. First, until one has determined the line of the road the line of the fencing cannot be settled. Secondly, it would be wrong to present Parliament with a very limited part of the picture while the rest of the matter is being settled, if it is settled, elsewhere. Surely the proper way to treat the legislature, the ultimate authority in this country, is to give it the whole of the project to consider and not cut out the parts that could possibly be dealt with otherwise while only troubling Parliament with the parts that can only be dealt with by legislation.
There are also other very serious objections. As I have already said, it is not only forest land which is to be taken for the bypass. There is also some private land. That is not, of course, a matter for the Verderers Court. Nor is the machinery in the 1949 Act appropriate, because it provides that in the event of disagreement in the Verderers Court the matter goes to arbitration, but under the terms of the Act arbitration is only between the promoter of the scheme and the verderers: it entirely excludes the participation of any other persons. Given not only the interest of the inhabitants of Lyndhurst, which is a major consideration, but the interests also of the owners of the small amount of land—about four-and-a-half acres—that it is proposed shall be taken, that does not seem to the county council, or to me, to be an acceptable procedure.
Finally, under the Act, arbitration is not, apparently, to determine the rightness or wrongness of the proposal but merely to rule as to whether the verderers, in coming to the decision appealed against, have acted reasonably. I would never attribute unreasonable action to the verderers, many of whom I have known for many years, but it is not a question of whether their action is unreasonable that matters but a decision on what is the right action to take given the demanding need for a bypass and the attempts made over the years to secure that one is provided.
I shall not enter into any further details nor detain your Lordships at this stage. Your Lordships may well feel that objections and questions that arise may most profitably be determined in the Private Bill Committee to which the Bill will go should it be given a Second Reading, and that when it has been argued
332
out in that Committee, in which all the parties concerned can discuss the matter fully and take part in the admirable procedure for Private Bills, then the Bill may come back amended or not as the case may be for a final view and the final decision of your Lordships. I hope that the House will feel that that is the right and sensible way to deal with the matter rather than for us to attempt in debate to decide at Second Reading all the complex issues which arise on a Bill like this before it has been discussed in Committee.
I suggest that the time that your Lordships may want to come to a final decision will be when they have the report of the Private Bill Committee and know the outcome and the arguments put forward by all the parties concerned. Perhaps I may now move the formal Motion for Second Reading, although of course I shall answer—or rather try to answer—any points raised by your Lordships when I come to reply. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Boyd-Carpenter.)
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, I must commence by declaring my interests in the New Forest. My family enjoys forest rights of pasture and I was the Official Verderer for some eight years a few years ago. I should also like to say what a pleasure it is for me to have beside me the noble Lord, Lord Manners, who is the present Official Verderer. As your Lordships know, he took the oath earlier this week. He is not proposing to speak because he will be giving evidence to the Select Committee, though he may say something if he is sufficiently provoked.
My reasons for speaking are threefold. First, I wish to make it absolutely clear that the verderers appreciate the need for measures to relieve the traffic at Lyndhurst. They have always seen the need. They feel that the route proposed by the Bill cannot be justified and they have put forward suggestions for an alternative route which would be more acceptable environmentally and in economic terms.
Secondly, I should like to tell your Lordships something about the verderers, their establishment, their powers and their responsibilities. They are the guardians of the forest—and that is important. It is their duty to see that the forest remains open and protected from development, and to ensure that it is so kept for the enjoyment of the visiting public and for the protection of the grazing of the New Forest ponies and cattle upon which depends the entire character of the open forest.
Section 15 of the 1964 Act places a duty on the verderers to protect the amenities of the forest. Were the verderers to give consent to the county's route, it is clear that the verderers would have failed properly to perform their obligations and could even be challenged in the courts. In short, the proposals in the Bill conflict with the duties already placed upon the verderers by Parliament. On the other hand, the county has chosen a route entirely to suit the sectional interests of some of the residents of Lyndhurst. I say "some of the residents" with emphasis.
Although the Verderers' Court has an ancient title and meets in the traditional Verderers' Hall, it is in

333
fact a very modern body, most of its powers having been granted by Parliament since the last war. Those powers are derived from the New Forest Acts of 1949, 1964 and 1970. One of the important parts of this Hampshire County Council Bill concerns the fragmentation of the forest. Need I say that the pressures from requests which encourage fragmentation of the forest have increased. Fragmentation has been threatened more and more during the past 12 years.
Half the court's members are appointed by public bodies, one of which is Hampshire County Council. The other appointing bodies are the Crown, the Minister of Agriculture, the Countryside Commission and the Forestry Commission. The remaining members are elected by the commoners and are usually authorities on some aspect of the forest's farming, conservation or history.
A few weeks ago I received a paper from a member of Hampshire County Council which obviously emanated from the council offices in Winchester. It mentions the status of the New Forest and that it requires a Private Bill to enable the bypass to be built where it crosses the open forest. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to that matter. In that letter there were four points that I should like to deal with one by one.
The first point concerns the need for a Bill to authorise the construction of the bypass, including incidental works. I suggest that a parliamentary Bill is not necessary to construct the bypass. Hampshire County Council already has planning permission for the road. It should now seek the consent of the verderers under Section 17 of the 1949 Act.
The second point raised by this paper, which has been sent out to many people, concerns fencing the bypass, including temporary fencing for earthworks, temporary works and offices, landscaping and accommodation works. Fencing of the roads in the New Forest has been authorised at least on two occasions recently by Public Acts: the New Forest Act 1964 and the New Forest Act 1970. The expensive means—and I emphasise the word "expensive"—of a Private Bill is not necessary. In any event, fencing would not be opposed.
The third point mentioned in that paper concerns the compulsory acquisition of land for the bypass, which includes Crown land and land in private ownership, as my noble friend mentioned. Since the works themselves do not need to be included in the Bill, the powers of compulsory acquisition do not need to be included either. Hampshire County Council already has such powers under the Highways Act. A parliamentary Bill is not therefore necessary.
The fourth point relates to authorising the provision of exchange lands and acquiring compulsorily the interests of the Lord of the Manor of Minstead in an area of land at Minstead, in order to gain access to the open forest from land owned by the county council, which it is suggested should be exchanged. The land offered in exchange, which was purchased by the county council some few years ago, is separated from the forest by a small area of land belonging to a Mr. Peter Green.
334
When the Official Verderer learnt that the Court of Verderers may be offered Acres Down land in exchange, he went with another verderer to see the owner of the land, who was happy to sell that piece of land to the verderers or the Crown for the benefit of the New Forest. No compulsory purchase order is necessary. I do not think that the verderers wish to be committed to having land in exchange or compensation.
Finally, I wish to make the House aware of the fact that there is substantial opposition to the Bill. I believe that there are no fewer than 11 petitioners objecting to the suggested route for the Lyndhurst bypass. All petitions acknowledge and agree that there is an urgent need for a bypass of some kind.
The petitioners include several well-known commissions and societies of national importance. They include the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, which emphasises that the forest is of national importance, and the Ramblers' Association, with a membership of over 53,000. The Ramblers' Association is also objecting to the exchange land which the noble Lord has mentioned, because it is not easily available to walkers from Lyndhurst or other car parks. The Forestry Commission has indicated that it would prefer an inner route as being less detrimental to the forest. That was made clear at the public inquiry in 1983.
The New Forest is not just another area of land in Hampshire. It is not just another area of land in England. It is the most important and largest remaining such area in Western Europe because a series of habitat types elsewhere has in recent years been rapidly destroyed. It is a large designated area. Because of its size, it seems permanently threatened by suggestions of fragmentation for many different reasons. The Hampshire Country Council bypass route is one which could create potential for further development.
It may interest your Lordships to know that in 1971 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mandated the Forestry Commission, which acts as his agent in the New Forest, to the effect that the New Forest must be regarded as a national heritage, with priority given to the conservation of its traditional character.
Following that, the New Forest has been designated as a site of special scientific interest. The verderers are responsible for safeguarding the New Forest from fragmentation. There are overwhelming reasons why Hampshire County Council's proposed Lyndhurst bypass is in the wrong place. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who mentioned that he knew it from his private school, to visit that area of the forest if they have not done so already. The thousands of petitioners would appreciate it if they got to know the area even better than they know it now.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I visited it about three months ago.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, the Bill's promoters are proceeding with it with alacrity. They requested an early date for this debate and they have pressed for a committee before Easter. That is their

335
privilege, but given the great cost to the ratepayers and to the petitioners of a lengthy hearing before a Select Committee, I suggest that there should be a breathing space to allow the parties to explore together a possible solution. I thank you, my Lords, for listening to me.
3.55 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, perhaps I may express an interest in the Bill because my great, great grandfather was the first and last Lord Lyndhurst. He was Lord Chancellor in three reigns which I think is a unique record. He was one of Disraeli's early sponsors. However that may be, I am in no position to express any comment on the Bill's merits, but I thought it may be for the convenience of the House if, as usual on these occasions, I say a few words about the procedure on the Bill.
At the moment, there are four petitions against the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, so clearly explained, one of them comes from the New Forest verderers. He also mentioned two other petitioners—the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. It should be noted on this occasion that this is the first time that such statutory amenity bodies have petitioned against a Private Bill. In the past, their views have been conveyed to the Select Committees by means of government reports. I should add that both those bodies have recently petitioned against the Channel Tunnel Bill (which of course is a hybrid Bill) in another place and more recently in your Lordships' House.
That led to consideration being given by Officers of both Houses as to whether that was the right thing for them to do. The conclusion was that where bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are not exercising their functions on behalf of the Crown. no objection would be made in either House to them petitioning against Private Bills. I believe that where such bodies have a responsibility for ensuring the preservation of an amenity, they should have the right to petition in either House.
If I may repeat what has already been clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter: if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to a Select Committee which will carefully consider the evidence given by its promoters and by the petitioners. I should also explain, as I have before, that unlike a Public Bill, by giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill the House does not necessarily accept the principle behind it. All a Second Reading decides is that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for further consideration. That committee will then decide whether the Bill should proceed and, if so, whether it should be amended. The committee will report back in due course to this House.
For those reasons, I would advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to allow a Select Committee to consider its provisions in the light of the petitions against it.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, if there were a time when someone should say, "Enough is enough, and now we
336
must decide", this is it. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, this matter has been going on for almost 50 years. We should have great sympathy for the people of Lyndhurst in their patient suffering. We should also compliment the county council on the way it has approached the question. For the benefit of Members of the other side of the House, I should say that it is a Conservative-controlled county council.
The county council has been carefully, extensively and deeply probing and researching this question for 12 years. It has considered six different routes and after researching the whole matter in depth has come forward with this compromise. It took some persuasion before the compromise was accepted by the New Forest District Council. It was not easily accepted. In its local plan of last year the district council had included a route which would have been a much greater intrusion on the forest. Consequently the county council made a very serious attempt to achieve a compromise hoping that it would be accepted by all parties. That has been our objective over the last 10 or 12 years.
I believe that this is a matter which should be decided by Parliament. The principal reasons were given by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but the noble Earl gave another. He said that if the verderers were going to agree to a route as in this Bill, they would not be doing their duty given to them-by Parliament. All right, that can only mean one thing. Parliament should make the decision and then the verderers are not put in that position.
The county council will try to show to your committee that unlike some other proposals this compromise avoids severing the village. Also, like some other proposals, it is not a major intrusion on the forest; it is only a minor intrusion. The county council will show that it proposes to take the minimum amount of land. There will be only a single track two-way road which I believe will be regretted in the future. It will probably be shown to be inadequate. But in its anxiety to meet the views of everybody and to gain acceptance by everybody, the county council has been prepared to go so far. It is prepared also to spend a great deal of money. The road including the part which goes through the village is only one and three-quarter miles long. It will cost £2.5 million.
Some of the money will go towards providing adequate crossings for animals and pedestrians; there will be four suitable crossings for that purpose. There will be a minimum loss of quality woodland. That has been taken very fully into account. There will be no loss of rare species of plants. In places like the New Forest there are always such species which must be protected. There will be no loss of those plants as a result of the bypass.
The verderers, some time ago, said that they would prefer to have land exchanged rather than money if there were to be a bypass, which they admitted was necessary. In consequence, the county council has shown foresight by buying land in advance ready for some kind of agreement on the bypass. It has 18 acres of land which will be exchanged for the 10.6 acres which are required from the verderers for the purpose of the bypass. The land which has been purchased and which will go to the verderers is a far better quality

337
pasture land than the land which will be used for the purpose of the bypass.
Careful attention will be given to the making good. The county council is taking the advice of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in all its plans for making good after the bypass is finished. It is also engaging a consultant architect for the landscaping of the bypass. It has done everything possible and I think that the Government department concerned knows that. The department had two opportunities last year to raise objections or to have a public inquiry. It could have raised objections when the local plan was passed to the Ministry last year, but it did not do so. Apparently it thought, as I do, "enough is enough, the time has come to get on with the job."
Later in the year there was another opportunity when the Ministry could have called in the plan. When the county council gave planning approval, the Ministry could have called in the plan but it did not do so. I am convinced that the department concerned is of the opinion that this has been going to and fro long enough and the time has come for a decision. There has been an honest attempt to get a satisfactory compromise. It is for the committee of your Lordships' House to make the decision and to bring it back to us. I hope that we shall get the bypass without undue delay.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I think it is hardly necessary for me to tell you that my home, Beaulieu, is very close to Lyndhurst, and I, like the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, am able to exercise common rights in the forest. It is therefore very natural that I should he most concerned about and interested in this Bill. In fact, the majority of people living in the New Forest are very concerned. They have been concerned with attempts to solve this problem for the past 50 years, having endured two public inquiries, three local consultation exercises and numerous public meetings; not forgetting enduring the appalling traffic jams which strangle Lyndhurst and the immediate surrounding area daily throughout the year and to an intolerable degree in the summer.
The noble Lord who introduced the Bill has expertly elucidated the problem and my noble friend Lord Malmesbury has done equally well on behalf of the verderers and the amenity societies. For some years now I have been in a little difficulty in forming an objective view, particularly as my father and grand-father were both members of the Court of Verderers and were always to the fore in their vigilance to protect the New Forest from unnecessary intrusions which might act against the good of the forest as a whole.
So I ask myself: is this intrusion really necessary? Does it act against the long-term interests of the forest as a whole? Are the verderers and amenity societies, after so many inquiries and so many agonising years for Lyndhurst and the general public, being reasonable in objecting so strongly to this Bill and to the route chosen by the county council and supported by New Forest Rural District Council? I think we should all recognise the right of the verderers to protect the forest from harm, and indeed we salute them for invariably exercising their statutory duty. Long may they do so.
338
But over this particular bypass issue, unless there is a speedy agreement between the parties on an agreed route, I feel the matter must go to a Select Committee.
For now, at long last, and with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, Lord Malmsbury—and it has not always been so—everyone concerned agrees that a bypass is necessary, in spite of overwhelming evidence of the need for many years. So the question is: which route? As has been said, both routes are in fact compromises—an outer route which the county council favours and which it claims preserves the cohesion of the small town of Lyndhurst and causes less damage to the open forest; or the inner route proposed by the verderers, which is more of an inner ring road which many think will split a third of the town from the main part of Lyndhurst and make access more difficult for visitors and the local population to its main local green space.
Much has been said about the land which the county council's proposal follows, some of it, incidentally, over the pre-war bypass route, the construction of which was never finished. The first section skirts the edge of a golf course. itself an incursion into the forest, and ends up crossing unexceptional forest scrub and undistinguished private agricultural land.
It is universally accepted that many parts of the New Forest are uniquely beautiful, unspoilt, remote and very important for flora and fauna. But by no stretch of the imagination can the land in question be described as,
"an area of great beauty or ecological interest"
or can it he said that the bypass,
certainly seriously curtail the quiet enjoyment of both residents and the thousands of visitors to the forest".
With the greatest respect, this overstating of the case seriously impairs the credibility of those who oppose the route. Whatever route is chosen, the whole environs of Lyndhurst will overnight become greatly enhanced and offer quieter enjoyment especially to the residents of Lyndhurst who have suffered for years seeing their small town strangled. Indeed, I have been astonished over the years to see what little regard has been shown, by those opposing the bypasses, to the residents of Lyndhurst who find increasing difficulty in walking or driving around their town or indeed using it for shopping. After all, Lyndhurst is the capital of the New Forest, an area which consists not only of woods, open spaces, ponies and deer, but also of villages, hamlets and people without which the New Forest would not be the unique but nevertheless lived-in place that it is today.
In addition, as chairman of English Heritage, I must mention the 13 listed buildings in the High Street itself whose foundations are being shattered daily by thundering traffic. It also puzzles many people that so much concern is expressed now about these 10 acres of forest. Where were the amenity societies and the petitions when 130 acres of much finer land was agreed without protest—so far as I know—for the dualling of the A.3 I and another 30 for other bypasses at Marchwood?
I do not know whether the verderers were compensated for those almost 200 acres at the time but no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, will know. I appreciate that the verderers' main objective,

339
as stated by the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, in opposing this Bill, is to register their protest about not following the arbitration procedure as laid down in the 1949 Act.
I too was much concerned that the county council's Bill could be construed as a device to avoid arbitration procedure. But after private consultations with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—and we look forward to listening to him this afternoon—I have no doubt that the county council is within its rights to introduce such a Bill, supported as it is almost unanimously by members of the county council and the local authority.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, it was not unanimous.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, wtih respect, I said "almost unanimously".
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, the figure was 28 against.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, historically the county council has always kept such matters to be resolved within the county boundaries and I agree that this is a sad departure from such a tradition. However, perhaps another reason for the county council's resolve was that it seemed to it that such a Bill was the only way out after years of obstruction by many who until recently opposed a bypass.
I believe that the great majority of people who live in the forest support the county council because the prospect of incurring more delay in solving an intolerable situation would have been irresponsible on behalf of the county and unacceptable to the people of Lyndhurst and indeed many others who live in the New Forest who have to drive through Lyndhurst in the course of their daily lives.
Even now opponents want yet another public inquiry. I accept that this proposed scheme is only half a bypass and will not solve Lyndhurst's problems. One thing that I shall prophesy is that when the bypass is built—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that time has gone on long enough—on whatever route is chosen, in a few years people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. Within a very short time the roads will have established themselves in the forest scene as other roads have done and nature of all sorts will flourish on the grass banks and verges as it does on all newly-fenced roads.
Lyndhurst will once again regain its heart and soul: and best of all, visitors to the New Forest will be able to visit, shop, and wander round its capital, as well as gaining easy access to the proposed New Forest museum at the moment being set up in the centre of Lyndhurst and which, in present circumstances, will be extremely difficult to reach.
I accept the absolute sincerity of all those involved in proposing and in opposing this Bill. Even at this late stage—I agree with my noble friend Lord Malmesbury—there is a great opportunity to show that here is a situation where it behoves everyone to take a contructive and positive attitude for the good of the whole. It is a difficult choice, but to perpetuate the
340
present situation will cause much greater harm to the forest and to Lyndhurst than the solution contained in this Bill. Surely two miles of traffic jams on most days of the summer are hardly good for the forest ecology; and not even the ramblers will be able to get through that.
The future conservation of the New Forest, now over 900 years old, depends on a partnership between the verderers, the Forestry Commission, the local authorities and, above all, all those who live in the forest. The main problem is caused by the leisure boom which means ensuring that tourism contributes to and does not destroy the fragile environment of the area. The traffic that tourism generates must be managed and controlled intelligently with as much foresight as possible. Account must be taken of the future management of the ever-growing traffic leading to and from the motorways, through Lyndhurst, to the neighbouring areas such as Brockenhurst, Lymington, Beaulieu, Cadnam and Southampton.
I believe that the county council route is acceptable, even in these circumstances, but it certainly deserves to be examined by a Select Committee. In the meantime, if the verderers and the petitioners can suggest a more effective and less destructive route which will fit into the overall traffic scheme for the forest then I hope that the promoters of the Bill, and indeed the Select Committee, will listen carefully to their proposals and make great efforts to achieve an agreed solution. This is the wish of everyone who lives in the forest. But let us waste no more time.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, we stand at the threshold of the season we call Spring. It is a time of excitement and promise. The excitement seldom fails; but—alas!—the promise is sometimes unfulfilled. A poet forebear of mine began one of his pieces like this:
"When spring came on with fresh delight, to cheer the soul and charm the sight".
This Bill, emerging at this time of the year-50 years on from the first attempts to provide a bypass relief for the village of Lyndhurst—indeed cheers my soul and I have expectations that its fruits will restore a measure at least of the former state of peace and tranquillity with which once long ago the village of Lyndhurst was invested until the time of increasing traffic problems so dispelled that happy situation. Of course it will get the traffic moving. Such things will in their differing ways charm my sight.
I was born shortly before the first attempts were made to build a bypass—and indeed a beginning was made. I was born in the Parish of Minstead and there spent the first nine years of my life, returning to it after the war, but leaving it for good about 28 years ago. In my early life it was home. I have hacked my way around the golf course at Lyndhurst. My endeavours would not have pleased noble Lords, who might have thought that here was one who was endeavouring to turn the first sod for a bypass round Lyndhurst, such was the tonnage of earth that I moved and the short distance that the ball was moved. I played cricket at Swan Green. I have had the privilege of watching Dartford warblers on the Ocknell Plain not far from Acres Down, which is mentioned in the Bill. I have

341
listened to and observed redstarts in the Shave Green area and I remember the return of the buzzards in middle and late 'forties.
I do not visit the New Forest very often these days; I am there about three or four times a year. However, I still maintain a small property in the village of Minstead and so pay a rate to the New Forest District Council. I mention those matters to indicate that I believe I can claim to know what the Bill is about, the needs for it, the objections to it (they seem to me to be quite proper objections) and the likely effects which will stem from the Bill if it passes through the minefields of the appropriate Parliamentary process.
I have listened most carefully to the preceding speakers; to the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and to the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I agree with pretty well everything that has been said hitherto. I look forward to hearing the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about the legality and constitutional propriety of the manner in which the Bill has been promoted and brought before your Lordships at this time. I am led to believe that we shall be given a view which exonerates the Hampshire County Council from transgressing in any way what the various New Forest Bills have laid down in the past. However, I am concerned about that matter.
What are we left with if the legal and constitutional matters are in order? We are left with a possibility of the construction of a bypass so dearly sought—one might also say so desperately sought—by the citizens of Lyndhurst. It has been sought not only by them, but by all those people whose journeyings demand a passage currently through rather than round Lyndhurst to reach perhaps Lymington, the Isle of Wight, or the National Motor Museum at Beaulieu.
What is the possibility? It is that the construction of a bypass might in some way upset the balance of nature in that particular part of a very special area. I fully accept that fact, and I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of your Lordships my sensitivity and abiding interest in natural history and the ecological situation in that area. I doubt whether the case which may be put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, will stand up. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred to the route proposed by the County Council. I know it pretty well. It is a poor area. As pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is not richly endowed with rare species. Having regard to the totality of the New Forest, and the special nature of the rest of the New Forest, it seems to me that it is a small, poor area which the New Forest would not miss if it were taken away for the construction of a bypass. Set against the needs of the road users and the residents, I think that the case does not succeed.
I should like to end on a positive note. A feature of the Bill which impresses me almost more than any other, is the fact that it is supported by three separate local authorities, together with the Lyndhurst Resident's Association. For 10 years I was an elected member of a local authority in South Wiltshire. I have seen at first hand the difficulties and concerns that can, that may and that do arise as between different local authorities where their attention is focused upon the
342
same objective. That is especially the case where authorities are charged with varying degrees of responsibility. Sadly it has become fashionable these days to dismiss local government with something approaching contempt and I think that that is greatly to be regretted.
The position of the local authority councillor is never any easy one. He or she is at the beck and call of the electorate every day of the week and lives in close proximity to that electorate. He or she is subject to the slings and arrows of outraged citizens whether that sense of outrage is justified or not. Not for the local councillor is the comparatively comfortable cocooning in the Palace of Westminster, away from so many of the electors for so long.
Surely it is greatly to the credit of those three local authorities—the Lyndhurst Parish Council, the New Forest District Council and the Hampshire County Council—that they have found it possible to agree the matter among themselves. They are the three democratically elected bodies charged with the responsibilities and duties in these matters and they agree.
I believe that what the three local authorities have put together, after 50 years of turmoil and travail in what has been an arduous and wearisome courtship, Parliament should not put asunder. I support the Bill. Let us get it moving speedily along its parliamentary road. In so doing, let us get the traffic moving around and not through the once peaceful village of Lyndhurst whose charms, for so long submerged in the dreadful noise and fumes of motorised traffic, should once again become apparent for residents and visitors alike to enjoy and appreciate.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken so far have agreed that there is a need to relieve the traffic congestion in Lyndhurst. I speak as a "consumer" in that I have been the victim of traffic jams in the area on many occasions, although I confess that I have lived only in Burley which is some distance away. We are agreed on that matter, and I believe that we should make that quite clear from the start.
However, what we are not quite agreed on is how to reach a solution to the problem. What considerations shall be weighed in reaching that solution? After many years serving on a roads and traffic committee I am well aware that nothing is more emotional than a road proposal and that at the end of that proposal someone is always disappointed. I sympathise with the local authorities because it is a difficult problem for them. I sympathise with their anxiety to find a solution. I am aware that discussion has been continuing on this matter for 50 years or so. However, I do not think that it is fair to say that discussions on this particular solution have been continuing for that length of time; this problem is a comparatively recent one.
I believe that the local authority has not chosen the most constructive method of approach on this occasion. I should like to say how delighted I am that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, defended a local authority. That is something which we are not used to hearing in this House and I compliment the noble Lord on that. However, on this occasion I find

343
myself on the opposite side of the House because I think that the local authority has not been as constructive as it might have been. Why try to bypass the verderers' right to object? My understanding of the situation is that on this occasion there was a possibility that a route could have been agreed with the verderers. That would have avoided the ratepayers footing the bill for this very expensive procedure. That is another point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been very vocal in the past. However, we seem to be incurring unnecessary expense for the ratepayers on this occasion.
I agree with previous speakers that now we have come this far we should give the Bill a Second Reading and let it go to the Select Committee. I believe that only in that committee can all the different arguments be examined and the proper evidence given. I hope that this afternoon the House will decide to give the Bill a Second Reading.
However, it surely endangers the future of the New Forest if its appointed guardians, the verderers, can be set aside in this way. If the Bill succeeds, it will establish an unhappy precedent. Therefore, although I think that the Bill must go to the Committee, I am hoping for a different outcome from that hoped for by the noble Lord who proposed the Bill.
The merits of the chosen route will no doubt be scrutinised thoroughly by the Select Committee. I hope that it will also consider whether there are any viable alternatives at the moment. Route 5A, the route being proposed, constitutues an unnecessary incursion on to heathland. Apart from the disturbance caused by the road itself, it would isolate a sizeable pocket of heathland which has hitherto been untouched and which would then become vulnerable to development Your Lordships will remember that there was considerable argument in respect of the M.25 and the pockets of green belt which were isolated. Arguments then followed about the fact that the area was suitable for development because the road was there. No doubt that argument would be used in the future if this particular route was approved. Perhaps the noble Lord who is proposing the Bill can say whether other routes have been evaluated and costed. That is another point which is not clear from the literature that I have received.
We have to look at the quality of the objectors to Route 5A. The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, gave a very comprehensive and impressive list. I was even more impressed when the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explained that this was the first time the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission had sought to give evidence and to petition against a Private Bill. That is a very telling argument and one that I hope the committee will take on board. The two bodies which are charged with responsibility to act in the interests of our natural environment do not give their advice lightly and surely it should not be ignored. The Ramblers' Association and the Open Spaces Society are national bodies with large memberships and they also should be seriously considered.
The New Forest is a unique area of great natural beauty and historic interest. As has been said, it is also
344
a site of special scientific interest of national and European value. Its importance has been recognised in the Acts of Parliament which control its operation and, from time to time, in ministerial comment since the last Act of Parliament. Therefore, those who are responsible for it have a special duty to exercise those responsibilities, not only with regard to local opposition and local opinion (important though that may be) but also on behalf of the whole nation. They have in their care a fragile heritage—and its fragility has been mentioned by a number of speakers this afternoon—which belongs to the future as well as to the present, and which the present guardians hold in trust for only a very short time.
Any changes which are made must be made with an acceptance of that duty—the duty to the future as well as to the present. I hope that when the Select Committee makes its decision it will measure the proposals in the Bill against that background.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Malmsbury, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is not often that I am entirely in agreement with what the noble Baroness says. I am not in the least opposed to the proposal of a bypass at Lyndhurst. During the First World War when I was very young my mother had a house near Lyndhurst. Although it was such a long time ago I remember how lovely it was, and how pleasant it was to live in the New Forest. Today, we are not opposing the idea of a bypass. We are suggesting that the bypass route which has been chosen is not the best route for the New Forest and all its amenities. I subscribe to everyone who has described the New Forest as one of the greatest examples of our national heritage, one that we must all preserve and which we must all support. At no point would I disagree with any of those views.
I do not know the route, although I have looked very carefully at the map. As I understand it, there are three other routes which could be followed and which would be less detrimental to the amenities of the area. Like most people, I have received information from Hampshire County Council and from the societies opposed to the present route as selected. The information has come from the Verderers of the New Forest, the New Forest Association, the CPRE, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Ramblers' Association. My own particulr interest stems from the fact that for a number of years I was chairman of the National Association of Youth Clubs. We established in the New Forest at Avon Tyrrel a centre for youth holidays and conferences. That centre is going extremely well. Hundreds of young people go there every year and have done so for many years. They enjoy and support all the amenities available there. On their behalf I should like to say that we should do everything possible to help to preserve and encourage the New Forest and its inhabitants.
Therefore, it would be wise for the Bill to go to a Select Committee to be looked at and then a decision taken. That need not take a very long time. I agree that the matter has taken a long time to come before your Lordships' House. However, it has now come before us and we have the proposal. I can see no reason why it should not be accepted. I hope that in the discussion

345
and in the way in which it is regarded in Committee, all the opposition will be given a fair hearing and that in the end we shall have a proposal with which everyone agrees. On this occasion everyone wants a bypass of some kind.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I also hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the particular issues involved can be considered by a Select Committee.
I should like to say a word or two concerning the legal position which has been raised in our debate. Before doing so. I should like to say that, like the noble Baroness, I go back before the motor age—I go back to the horse and cart. I go back to the days when, before the First World War, my brother and I cycled down the road from Cadnam to Lyndhurst and on to Beaulieu. There was another road going across from Southampton to Christchurch. They were quite pleasant, delightful roads along which to cycle. As Lyndhurst was the capital of the New Forest all five roads met there, and so of course we went through Lyndhurst which dates back earlier than the Normans.
There was a manor at Lyndhurst and a manor at Minstead long before the Normans came. Much of the discussion today concerns feudal law. At Lyndhurst there was a manor house where the lord of the manor lived. Around him there would be his own demesne lands. The tenants of the manor would have their holdings which they could plough and cultivate with their permitted instruments. Beyond all that were the wastes of the manor—acres and miles of them—where the commoners, the tenants, did not own the soil but they had the right of commoners to graze their animals on that open wasteland. That is a right which has come clown today. They had rights to cut turf; but their most important right was to graze their animals on the open wastelands of the forest.
There is also the additional point that no one was allowed to erect a fence or an enclosure in the forest or in those open wastelands, because that would interfere with the free access and egress of their animals. So it is the right to graze which has come down today with the commoners, and also the right to pull down any fence or enclosure which is erected in the forest and which prevents their animals grazing. Those were the great rights of the commoners. Historically, and by statute, the verderers are there to protect the rights of the commoners and to make by-laws in regard to them and to ensure that the animals are properly marked. The verderers protect the rights of the commoners. That is the legal position.
In my day there was no trouble about traffic or the need for bypasses. However, in 1937 it was becoming apparent that the old highways and roads would not carry the new traffic. There was a learned eminent King's Counsel, Mr. W. H. Upjohn, living at Lyndhurst. He gave a most learned opinion in 1937 saying that no one had a right to make a new highway through the forest unless Parliament approved it because any highway would obstruct and interfere with the rights of commoners, take away their grazing land and prevent their going from one place to the other.
346
The war came. The forest was encroached upon by the sawmills and all the other things that came in during the war. In 1947 a committee was appointed under Mr. Harold Baker and others. The committee made an excellent report covering over 100 pages. It was the best historical and analytical report that anyone has ever seen. The committee said what was to be done in the forest, realising the great danger that was coming in the form of motor traffic. The committee having approved it, the great trunk road, the A.31, was approved by Parliament.
The committee also considered the other two roads passing through, the A.337 from Cadnam to Lyndhurst and beyond, and the A.35. The committee said that each could be widened but otherwise should remain as they were. The committee sent on to say in 1947 that a bypass for Lyndhurst was essential.
In the years that have passed the question has been where the bypass should go. Everybody agrees that there should be a bypass. Much of the traffic has been taken away by the new trunk roads and by the M.27 further up. Nevertheless, even with the two roads, North to South and East to West, meeting in Lyndhurst, and the Beaulieu road going off, the congestion is such that a bypass is essential. Oh, what controversy there has been!
I come now to the legal point under Section 17 of the New Forest Act 1949. Section 17 has no application to this situation. The trunk roads were provided for by the statute. The section provides that any future roads could be applied for and, with the verderers' consent, constructed by the highway authority. Subsection (2) clearly said:
"nothing in this section shall authorise the fencing or other enclosure of the land".
Any of the new roads that were to be made were not to be fenced. Any application under Section 17 had to be wholly in respect of an unfenced road. That is, of course, quite inapplicable in modern times. All roads through the forest must be fenced for the sake of the animals and, indeed, of the motorists. The section deals only with unfenced roads going across open lands.
With regard to unfenced road, it is Section 17(8) that is relied upon. It states:
"The verderers shall not unreasonably withhold their agreement on any application under this section by a highway authority: and if any dispute arises as to whether their agreement has been unreasonably withheld the matter shall be referred to … arbitrator".
There it is. That is in regard to unfenced roads only. If the highway authority seeks to do this, it has to get the consent of the verderers.
That has nothing whatever to do with a fenced bypass, which is essential in this case. There is no doubt that the highway authority, Hampshire County Council, has to come to Parliament because Parliament is the only authority that can authorise a fenced bypass road round Lyndhurst. Planning permission has been given by the county council, the residents want it and the only remaining issue is the route—how much discussion to and fro, inquiries, and the like.
Hampshire County Council has come up with a compromise route going a little but not far into the forest while keeping Lyndhurst as a village or small

347
town. It seems to me, as it does to the county council and all the local authorities, that that is the best solution possible. It is necessary for the protection of the residents of Lyndhurst and, indeed, for the enjoyment of passing motorists. It is essential that there be a bypass. For Hampshire County Council, the only course is the one that it has suggested.
So let the matter go to a Select Committee! I would, however, say this. If the Bill should fail and there is no bypass, when is a bypass ever to be constructed? Is it to be another 50 years before it can be got through? I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope further that the Select Committee, following all the discussion, will confirm the county council's proposals.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I have a scant claim to be speaking in the debate except that, on one occasion, I contributed to the congestion in Lyndhurst by breaking down when I was towing a steam launch which is even older than either my noble godmother, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, or indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
I think that all of us can agree—and we should seek agreement in the matter so far as we can—that some means need to be found to relieve the congestion in Lyndhurst. I have not been in great detail into the various routes, but I understand that one of the arguments—I think that it has not been mentioned this afternoon—is whether the proposals for a bypass have been related to the broader issues of the needs of the county road system as a whole. This was alluded to in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It seems to me that those are questions which have to be answered.
However, the fact that there is a dispute about the details of the route leads us to what is perhaps the more fundamental problem that troubles the objectors to this Bill. Is it really necessary to spend something like a quarter of a million pounds, which will add perhaps 10 per cent. to a project that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, says will cost £21/2 million? Is it really necessary to add 10 per cent. to the cost of this operation by promoting this Bill? Furthermore, I wonder whether at the end of the day it will in fact save time.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill said in his usual persuasive way that there had been a great deal of consultation, and he mentioned incidentally the private owners of some of the land. My understanding is that some of the land belongs to the Forestry Commission. If I am right, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is a fact that the Forestry Commission has not been consulted? If that is so, is it not extraordinary? Can we really claim that the consultative process has been exhausted?
The noble Lord did not mention arbitration. He did not say why that route was rejected. Some of us who have friends down there have a strong feeling that we are here participating in the use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Admittedly it is a crusty and ancient nut,
348
but nevertheless one wonders whether we should be in this situation. In the words of the Welshman, "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here".
A noble Lord: The Irishman.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I recognise that we have now to give this Bill a Second Reading. I can only say that I hope that all the arguments will be pursued rigorously and as quickly as possible in order to minimise the extra expense with which the county council is faced.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I did not put my name down but I hope that I may have permission to intervene briefly in this debate. Although I do not live in the New Forest I know it a bit. I have had massive correspondence from people down there—including the verderers—in the past week or two, and I feel inclined to speak up.
Nobody questions the necessity for a bypass route around or through Lyndhurst. Nobody questions that, and I know that it is urgent, but I cannot help feeling from such information as has come my way that the verderers, with all their responsibilities, powers and obligations for guarding and looking after that special area of Hampshire, the New Forest—indeed a special area of Britain—are being ridden over roughshod. They have made clear what they object to, and they have been ignored.
During this debate it has been briefly mentioned that they have been able to produce ideas for an alternative route for this bypass. I requested a map, which was sent to me. I have not visited the place but it looks to me, from the data which was supplied with it, that that alternative route is well worth looking at. For one thing, it is shorter, and for another, part of it is down an existing route which only needs widening, and it does not infringe on the wonderful New Forest area which is so much valued by the whole country, the verderers themselves, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and a host of non-governmental organisations. I do not believe that that alternative route has been carefully looked at, and certainly it was hardly mentioned this afternoon.
For all these reasons I should have felt inclined to oppose this Second Reading were it not for the authoritative statement made by my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench, the Chairman of Committees, as to what will happen if we give the Bill a Second Reading. I accept completely his word that it will go to a Select Committee. I hope that the Select Committee, with the usual wisdom of Select Committees of your Lordships' House, will look thoroughly at the whole thing, and hopefully arrive at a less unsatisfactory answer.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for the explanation he gave of this Bill and the justification for it. I must be among the minority of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate who have no direct interest in Lyndhurst or the New Forest. My interest in speaking

349
here is partly because of the transport responsibilities that I have for the Front Bench, and, secondly, as one who seeks to enjoy an open environment anywhere one possibly can, and to ensure that it is preserved not just for ourselves but for future generations. Therefore the issue goes far beyond Lyndhurst and far beyond Hampshire. It becomes a national issue with which we are dealing.
I was impressed by the figures given in the county council document that 80 per cent. of vehicles entering the village is through traffic. I have often been part of that through traffic, and therefore I can realise what everybody has agreed is the essential need for a bypass at Lyndhurst.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said that the New Forest is not just a forest; it is a collection of delightful villages. I wonder whether I could mischievously be irreverent and say that I wish that some of those speeches had been made when we dealt with the Stansted Bill, because I have a feeling for all the lovely Roding villages within 30 miles of London which were in danger.
I believe that we ought to give a Second Reading to this Bill, but there are certain matters which I should like to indicate are of some concern. I recall our long debate on the Okehampton Bypass Order in December 1985. A lot of consideration was given to Lord Sandford's report on national parks in 1974. This declared clearly:
"No new route for long-distance traffic should be constructed through a national park"
etc., unless there was,
"a compelling need which would not be met by any reasonable alternative means".
I know that we are dealing with the New Forest, but surely the same principles must apply.
I have not walked over the proposed route—I believe that some noble Lords have—neither do I know the details of the alternative routes, but if one accepts the principle laid down for national parks and believes that the same sort of principle ought to apply to an area such as the New Forest, then we must give some serious consideration to possible alternatives.
Reference has been made to the exchange of some 18 acres which will be given to the New Forest. What we have not heard clearly is the nature of the land. Will this exchange land fit in with the New Forest? Will it fit in with all the natural areas of the New Forest? I should like somebody to explain that at some time.
The statement that many noble Lords will have seen issued by the promoters in support of the Bill refers to the fact that the verderers wanted exchange land rather than monetary compensation. And yet, as has been made clear to us, nevertheless the verderers still have put in a petition on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, explained the responsibilities of the verderers, which I hope will be expressed before the Select Committee.
Paragraph 11 of this document frankly concerned me considerably. Reference has been made to the fact that the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have adopted the unusual step of issuing petitions. I was concerned that paragraph 11 informs us of,
350
"The Petitions of The Countryside Commission and of The Nature Conservancy Council being amenity bodies created by statute and financed from public funds".
I hope that does not imply criticism that those bodies because they are creatures of statute using public funds should not carry out the responsibilities for which they are appointed: respectively to look after the countryside or to look after nature conservation. This responsibility is placed upon them.
I have already said that a bypass is essential, but the issue goes far beyond the people of Lyndhurst and far beyond even Hampshire. What has to be decided is not whether there should be a bypass, but whether the selected route is the right route or whether there is an alternative route which is preferable from the standpoint of the countryside and the environment. That seems to be the issue and it can only be determined by giving a Second Reading to the Bill and sending it to a Select Committee.
I hope that this debate and the points expressed will help the committee to arrive at satisfactory conclusions and that whatever happens any decision that may be taken on a bypass will be one that does either no damage or minimal damage to the environment. That should be our main consideration.
5.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, because of the intense interest that has been aroused by this Bill, it would, I feel, be rather odd if I did not, on behalf of the Government, make the Government's position clear. It is traditional on a Private Bill that the Government take a neutral stance and this Bill is no exception to that tradition. The Government have no objection in principle to the proposals in the Bill. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are both necessary and justified. The question therefore is how and when?
The village of Lyndhurst lies at the heart of the New Forest and has for 50 years suffered from increasing traffic congestion, as we have heard, particularly in the summer months. Much of this congestion is caused by visitors who wish to enjoy the unique character of the forest. It is therefore ironic that the provision of a bypass for the village will inevitably encroach to some extent into the forest which the visitors have come to enjoy. The need for a bypass is generally accepted, but the route which it should take has been the subject of much controversy over many years and there have been two public inquiries and several other local consultations. The route now adopted, known as route 5A, for which parliamentary authority is sought by Hampshire County Council in this Bill, is a compromise but is nonetheless controversial.
The department I have the honour to serve has been involved in certain planning aspects of this proposal whch exemplifies the Government's neutral stance on this issue. We did not use powers available to us to require Hampshire County Council to submit its proposals for decision by the Secretary of State, and it has therefore been suggested, not today I am glad to say, that that view expressed has implied approval of the proposals by the department. That is not the case. On the two occasions when it was asked to intervene in

351
the proposals the Department considered all the relevant aspects very carefully. The Secretary of State accepted the environmental concerns, but concluded that the matter could be decided locally. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that that implied neither approval nor disapproval of the proposals.
The Forestry Commission, which is responsible to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is also concerned about the proposal. As managers of the forest, the Forestry Commission has publicly expressed its opposition to any route which crosses the open forest on the grounds of damage to the character of the landscape, of intrusive noise and disturbance and the effect it would have on livestock and wildlife—all points that have been made in the debate today. The commission accepts, however, that these known views would have been taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he decided not to call in the local plan. The commission is content, therefore, that the fate of this Private Bill should be decided by the will of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Malmesbury raised the question of the duties of the verderers laid upon them by the will of Parliament and the conflicts raised by the proposals in the Bill. I take note of my noble friend's point, but equally one could say that conflicts also arise from the views expressed by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission on the status of the forest. All these points can best be considered by the Select Committee, but it is clear that the county council was aware of these factors and it is for that reason that it has presented this Private Bill to Parliament. The Government's view therefore is that it is the promoters and not the Government who should justify their case.
I hope therefore that the House will not think it impudent of me to quote from the Companion to Standing Orders. page 124:
"The Second Reading of a Private Bill is usually formal, though it is the first occasion on which the Bill is brought before the House otherwise than pro liana or in connection with the Standing Orders. It does not, as in the case of Public Bills, affirm the principle of the Bill, which may therefore be called in question before a committee".
Page 128 goes on to say:
"A decision of the Committee 'that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill' brings the proceedings to an end".
To conclude, the Government do not wish to take sides on this issue. It is a matter for Parliament to decide. Despite the reservations expressed in many quarters about the environmental impact of the proposed route 5A, I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, to allow it to proceed in the usual way to committee for detailed consideration of the whole matter, which could indeed include a change of route.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, all of your Lordships who have spoken, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury, have expressed the view, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and sent to a Private Bill Committee. In the light of that consensus, your Lordships would not
352
expect me to respond at any length. Indeed, were I to do so, that might well be counter-productive. I shall therefore confine myself to answering, or trying to answer, those specific points which were raised by a number of noble Lords.
I come first to my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal who said with his habitual vigour that he did not see why the county council should waste a quarter of a million pounds in promoting a Bill. I am glad to be able to reassure my noble friend that the latest advice I have—it is very recent advice indeed—is that the figure he has quoted is happily grossly exaggerated. It is unlikely to exceed 100,000. That is quite enough. It leads me straight to the point as to why it is necessary to legislate. I need only refer my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He made it quite clear that apart from anything else it would not be legally possible to construct a bypass properly fenced—as this one plainly must be—without legislation. Therefore, quite apart from all the other points that arise, which I recapitulated in my earlier speech and will not repeat, legislation is necessary, though the county council and I regret any expense incurred. Indeed the longer the proceedings of the Select Committee are prolonged no doubt the higher the expense. But that is for the objectors to have in mind. The fact remains that progress cannot be made on an operation which all of your Lordships who have spoken have regarded as necessary—the construction of a bypass—without legislation.
Legislation is therefore crucial. On my noble friend's other point, the Forestry Commission has been kept closely in touch. It has been consulted and is aware of the whole matter.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Dulverton, it is quite wrong and unfair to all concerned to say that the verderers have been ignored. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Malmesbury did not take that point, because he is aware of the position. There has been constant discussion and consultation with the verderers, including correspondence with the chairman of the county council and my noble friend Lord Manners. Even up to the last few weeks there has been constant discussion.
Although there is a difference of opinion—it would be silly to pretend the contrary—between the elected local authority and the verderers, neither can possibly say that the other has been ignored. I know that the county council would very much regret it if it was thought that any action it had taken indicated lack of respect or good manners towards the verderers whose important role the county council, like the rest of us, acknowledges. I should like very much to clear up that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked whether other routes had been looked at and evaluated. The answer is, yes—if I may engage in a colloquialism—and how! There have been innumerable routes looked at. The fact that the one finally chosen by the county council is labelled 5A perhaps speaks for itself. Of course there has been discussion, but, as I tried to say when I opened this debate, the problem has been to achieve the best possible reconciliation of the clash of interests.

353
From the verderers' point of view and the wish to ensure protection of the forest, the closer to Lyndhurst the bypass is the better. From the point of view of the citizens of Lyndhurst, it is of extreme importance that the route should be just a little bit out from the town. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said that it is not the best route. I can only say that it is the route which, in the judgment of those who have worked on it assiduously over, not months, but years, represents the best possible compromise.
If it is suggested that amenities will be spoiled, I invite your Lordships to give attention to the fact, as you will see if you look at the papers, that it is a route that conducts you straight past not only the golf course but also the cemetery. Perhaps. therefore, it can be looked at as not necessarily being a violation of beautiful countryside.
Again, it would be a great mistake to believe that the Hampshire County Council, or, still more perhaps, the New Forest District Council, had any less regard for the amenities of this wonderful forest, for its beauties. for the important part it plays in the life of the whole of the south of England, than the verderers, your Lordships or anybody else. They regard it as of the greatest importance. But, as your Lordships know, the problem of administration, whether it is local or central, is that you have to balance to the best of your ability considerations of that kind against the practical needs of running and organising a country, a county or a small town.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, brought out very effectively the miseries that traffic congestion causes to what used to be, as I remember it as a boy, a most attractive and peaceful small town or large village, and how these amenities have been eroded and the inhabitants subjected to something not far short of torture by the mass of traffic surging through their streets. So it is the job of a responsible local authority to try to balance that.
Having said that. no one, least of all the Hampshire County Council, is going to claim omniscience on these matters. Therefore, it seems to me, and I think it seems to them, a very useful thing that this matter should go to what I think all your Lordships regard as one of the most effective bodies in our system of government—a committee of your Lordships' House. There, those who take the view strongly held by my noble friend Lord Malmesbury and those who take the view that I have ventured to express, can all seek to argue them out. We have an amount of time that would not be available on the Floor of your Lordships' House with opportunities for cross-examination, the tendering of evidence and all the very effective procedure of our committee system. That is where these matters can be ironed out.
I can tell your Lordships, in response to the requests of two or three noble Lords, that the county council is not rigid or dogmatic in its views. It feels that it has done its best following years of research, years of consultation and years of examination of the problem. It does not claim infallibility and, if the committee of your Lordships' House sees fit to vary the Bill in response to objections which have been made, I am sure that the county council will most loyally carry out what is resolved. But having said that, I hope your
354
Lordships will not accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Malmesbury that there should be further delay. I think this matter—
The Earl of Malmesbury: I have not argued for further delay. I suggested closer co-operation before the Select Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged, though my noble friend will find when he reads Hansard that he asked for a delay, as I understood it, before going to the Select Committee. I hope your Lordships and the Select Committee will not respond to that. I can assure my noble friend, knowing a little of our Select Committee procedure, that there will be ample time for discussion.
The county council's attitude I have already described and I do not need to repeat it. I hope also—if I may express this view—that the verderers may show similar flexibility. I am sure they will. But I hope that we shall not go for delay for delay's sake. This is a matter which really needs dealing with now. I hope that our Select Committee will proceed to work as soon as the system operates and will give the Bill the thorough analytical inspection and study that it deserves and that the feelings which have been expressed in this debate show it deserves. Therefore, unless I have omitted to reply to any of your Lordships who have a point they wish me to answer, I formally beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.18 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on the Bill in respect of Clauses 48 to 51.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(Lord Cilenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 48 [Lord Advocate's direction]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 44, line 20, at end insert ("The Lord Advocate shall be responsible for the actions of a nominated officer in his exercise of the powers and functions conferred on him.").
The noble Lord said: In considering this part of the Bill—and I trust the Committee will forgive me for dealing with it in general first—I think it is necessary to make clear the position of myself and my noble friends on this side. We agree that serious or complex fraud is a great problem and one which deserves special provision. For many years the prosecution of fairly large frauds in Scotland, and especially the preparation of the case for prosecution, has been far from satisfactory and it is a matter which I personally have raised with the last two predecessors of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in office.
The Government are to be congratulated for having set up in the Crown Office a fraud unit. But it is clear from this part of the Bill that the Government do not consider that that is enough; and we agree.
The clauses that we have to consider are difficult because they raise the question of the appropriate balance between the right and freedom of the individual and the need to prosecute and convict the perpetrators of serious fraud. If I may say so, there is no disagreement whatever between the parties. Perhaps I may emphasise that by quoting the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Home Office, who on the similar Criminal Justice Bill for England, said:
"We all want to enable the director and staff of the serious fraud office to act quickly and effectively and to follow complicated trails wherever they lead, but we do not want to create an unprecedented creature whose tentacles will reach into every person's privacy".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 13/1/87; col. 61.]
I wholly agree with that and I think that that is the issue which we have to consider. It is unfortunate that the Government did not feel able to include the clauses, which follow the English Bill very closely, presented at a time when they could have been discussed at Second Reading and, perhaps more importantly, when we could have received advice and suggestions from the bodies having an interest in this matter, such as the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and other bodies. However, we must do the best we can.
As regards this particular amendment, the provisions of the Bill differ from the English Bill in that, rather than setting up a serious fraud office and a director, we have the situation in which the Lord Advocate nominates an officer for a particular offence. As I understand it, that officer is therefore not the same for separate offences. It is far from clear who the nominated officer will be and what his status will be. It is not clear whether he is to be someone who is perhaps similar in position to a person appointed to investigate under the Companies Act who is an independent contractor, so to speak. In that case, he may be a Queen's Counsel or a prominent accountant.
Alternatively, is he to be a civil servant? Who is to be responsible for his misdemeanours, if any complaints about his conduct are made, as they may almost certainly be? Is this a matter for questions in Parliament to a Law Officer or is it a matter to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner? Will it be possible to criticise or complain about such a person? It is for those reasons that I have put down the amendment, which will make the Lord Advocate responsible for the officer's actions and answerable for them. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the general welcome which he has accorded to the particular clauses which we are to look at again on recommitment. I agree with him that one must look for the proper balance, having regard to the public interest on the one hand, and at the end of the day, the person who stands accused of a serious and complex fraud. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Lord for recognising that we have, within the Crown Office
356
and as long ago as June 1984, set up a fraud unit in order to deal with the more serious and complex forms of fraud which have arisen in recent years.
I should like to make clear the reasons the term "nominated officer" is used here. Normally, I would expect that officer to be a member of the Crown Office or the fraud unit staff, or perhaps even a procurator fiscal or a procurator fiscal depute. However, the definition is wider to allow for the possibility that in a more complex fraud inquiry the Lord Advocate might authorise an accountant who was not a member of his staff to carry out part of the investigations which called for specialised professional skills. I think that the noble Lord opposite will recognise the importance of being able to provide for such an appointment.
I should like to make clear to the Committee that in so far as the officer is a person nominated by the Lord Advocate, who acts within the powers conferred upon him by the clause and for the purposes of the particular investigation in respect of which the nomination is made, then I would clearly be answerable for anything that he might do or any omissions on his part because he would of course be acting on my behalf. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord opposite.
In so far as I understand this to be a probing amendment, I hope that that will answer the points the noble Lord has made. I only wish to say that I should be concerned that any express provision of this kind should appear in the Bill. It would then cast doubt on the responsibility of the Lord Advocate of the day for the actions of his agents and notably of the procurator fiscal in other circumstances under a well-known brocard, expressio unius. Perhaps in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I must say that I find the answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a bit disappointing. I should have thought that an express provision in the Bill was desirable. I entirely accept that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate will himself, during his period in office, accept full responsibility. However, one must think of the years ahead. Knowing the Crown Office, I must say that on the whole I think that in 10, 20 or more years it might be as well that this provision was in the Bill so that no future Lord Advocate, when many of us are perhaps dead and gone, will have any doubts in the matter.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I also regret that the noble and learned Lord has not seen fit to accept this amendment. Quite apart from the question of answerability in the sense of answering questions about one's actions, if the nominated officer is not an employee of the Crown Office and if he misbehaves or acts outside the scope of his appointment in some way, there is the possibility of claims for damages. That might occur if his investigations caused serious disruption to someone's business. I think that the matter should be made clear and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to consider it further.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord has moved on to a slightly

357
different point. I was dealing with the question of responsibility. I have made it quite clear that I would be responsible for the nominated officer's actings within the scope of his agency and in the course of an investigation. I think that if a person nominated were to stray beyond the powers which he could properly exercise, then his actions would, to that extent, be ultra vires and unlawful. He should, in those circumstances, remain personally liable to account for what he has done.
One reaches the stage here of ostensible authority. I find it very difficult to formulate the kind of situation in which the nominated officer would be acting outside the scope of his ostensible authority. I would remain liable to account to your Lordships, as would any Lord Advocate, for the actions of the nominated officer. When it comes to personal liability in relation to action for damages I accept that the common law would operate as to the question of scope of his authority. If he went outwith the scope of his authority to that extent he would be personally liable to account for what he had done.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's point. I did not understand it to arise out of the formulation of his amendment. I hope that that will suffice.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Not entirely, because it is a distinction between the position in England as it is to be and the position in Scotland. In England, as we understand from the discussions in another place, the serious fraud office, the director of it and all his officials are to be civil servants. There is a clear responsibility on the Government for the misdemeanours of a civil servant, whether acting outwith his ostensible authority or otherwise, in the exercise of his duty. This raises a problem and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take it away and consider it. I do not wish to detain the Committee by asking on this point for its opinion.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: As the noble Lord has now made the thrust of his argument more clear, I assure him that I shall certainly consider it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 44, line 22, leave out ("one of his deputies") and insert ("by the Solicitor General for Scotland").
The noble Lord said: A serious or complex fraud is a matter of some importance. It has been said in another place—and I regret that I shall have to refer several times to discussions in another place—that there are expected to be about 50 to 100 English or Welsh cases. In Scotland, therefore, one could expect something of the order of five to ten or fewer cases a year. If a direction is to be given, it should not be by any one of the 12 or 13 deputies of the Lord Advocate but by a Law Officer. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I support the amendment. I get the impression that the Lord Advocate will not be hostile to it, so I need say no more.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I cannot think what gave the noble and learned Lord that impression. I am happy to say that I recognise that from time to time certain matters are reserved for personal decision by the Law Officers. I am persuaded to accept that such a step is appropriate in this case.
I cannot invite the Committee to accept the amendment as it stands as the specific reference to "Solicitor General" is unneccesary in view, of the terms of Section 2 of the Law Officers Act 1944. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will withdraw his amendment on the understanding that I accept it in principle and that the Government will table a suitable amendment in another place.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is far too much to hope that I could get the drafting absolutely right. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to raise on clause stand part the issue of the lack of any definition of what is a serious or complex fraud. It is rather difficult. It does not appear anywhere either in this Bill or in the English Bill. It is alternative—serious or complex. There are many frauds and, without any definition and leaving it entirely to the discretion of the Lord Advocate in Scotland as to what is serious or what is complex, I should have thought that there is a considerable difficulty, to which we may come when considering the next clauses, especially Clause 50, as to what we are dealing with and what people should expect. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will be able to respond.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The noble Lord has pointed out that this echoes the phraseology in the English Bill. To that extent it is desirable that the two Bills should go hand in hand.
This question stems from the report submitted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, who spoke in general terms of serious fraud and of the complex nature of it. It appears to us that it is impossible to provide a definition of what is serious or complex. Those words speak for themselves. One is giving the direction under Clause 48(1)(a) in relation to a suspected offence.
I am bound to say that this matter exercised me. At the end of the day I am persuaded that it is not possible to give any more detailed a direction than the words "serious or complex" as to the nature of a suspected offence which would bring into focus the powers of investigation that follow in Clause 49. No decision will be taken except by, as I now accept, a Law Officer. It would be his responsibility to satisfy himself that the suspected offence was of this grave nature. It is in an attempt to express the gravity of the suspected offence that these words are used.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am inclined to agree with the Lord Advocate on this one. I should have thought that to anyone in the Scottish Crown Office a serious or complex fraud was rather like an elephant—difficult to describe but easy to recognise.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This discussion has been helpful. I see the reasons, and I understood them beforehand, but I think it was as well to put on the record that there was a lack of definition. I do not wish to take the matter further.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Powers of investigation]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 44, line 25, leave out ("or any other person who he has reason to believe has relevant information").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together. These are important amendments. The clause as drafted gives extremely wide powers to the nominated officer. The purpose of the amendment is to leave out from these draconian or severe powers the person who might be described as the ordinary witness rather than the person who is under investigation.
As the clause is drafted the ordinary witness is forced to disclose information without a right to silence and with the possibility both of self-incrimination and of breaching rules and practices of confidentiality. There is a protection in subsection (6) with regard to legal privilege but there is no protection for banks, auditors, other accountants, doctors, ministers of religion, priests or a whole range of people. Those people may get information in a variety of circumstances under varying degrees of confidentiality and have no possible answer because they commit an offence if they do not give the information that is required.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has provided certain safeguards in relation to search warrants for people in such categories, but none of that applies to Scotland. Quite apart from the difficulty about the person such as the bank manager, the auditor or the minister of religion, there is the question of the right balance of the right to silence and the duty not to force somebody to incriminate himelf. This has always been recognised as a basic right upon which the criminal law and the freedom of the subject are dependent.
It is, I would suggest, a matter of some concern that, over and over again in the last few years, we have been asked in specific cases—which may justify some erosion of principle—to whittle away at these rights and to set precedents which might be used at a later date to erode the rights more fully. Lord Roskill's report does not seek anything like these rights. As I understand it, his report only suggests a certain emendation to the Section 447 of the Companies Act investigation provision and even Section 447 of the Companies Act is restricted to investigations of the company under investigation and not of other persons. The other Companies Acts investigations under Section 431 and thereafter have a requirement that the investigator shall act fairly and give the person criticised the right to see the draft report and to make answer if he so wishes.
The Financial Services Act, which the noble and learned Lord and I tried to understand last year, has investigation provisions, but these are also restricted. It does seem to me that this is exactly what the
360
Secretary of State had in mind when he was talking about creating an unprecedented creature whose tentacles will reach into every person's privacy.
On the similar and almost identical clauses in the English Bill the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend agreed in another place that the clause must be made more specific and undertook to consider how this could be best amended on these particular amendments which I am putting forward. I very much hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will adopt the same approach in considering these amendments. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: While I recognise the noble Lord's concern, I am bound to say that the amendment proposed would, in my view, emasculate the Bill's provisions. I noted what the noble Lord opposite said when he spoke about the ordinary witness and spoke about the right to silence. What he would leave in would be the power of a nominated officer to require the person whose affairs are to be investigated to attend. He would, however, take out—curiously enough—the persons whom he had reason to believe had relevant information—that is to say, the witnesses.
It is a cardinal rule, as I undersand it and as I think the noble Lord opposite will accept, that in general terms the ordinary individual has a duty to assist in providing information which, at the end of the day, may be relevant in bringing another person to justice. Indeed, I think it is often said by the courts, for instance, that where the defence approaches a person who is on the Crown list of witnesses he is under a public duty to provide information for the defence and equally for the prosecution.
Therefore, I do not find the noble Lord's argument on this a compelling one. It is important to remember that we are dealing here, as the noble Lord opposite recognises, with matters of considerable current concern: the gowth of serious and complex fraud and the increasing sophistication and expertise of those who engage in such criminal activity. To confine the effective investigation of suspected serious fraud simply to the person whose affairs are under investigation, so far as answering questions or the recovery of documents is concerned, seems to me to impose far too great a limitation upon the appropriate investigation and would make it impossible to establish the facts or bring home the crime to the perpetrator. In many cases, for instance, it would be impossible to establish at an early stage who were the witnesses and who were the victims and these would be persons whom it would be very important to discover at an early stage.
I understood the noble Lord to suggest that my right honourable friend in another place had given certain undertakings but I am not aware of that. I should merely say that, as I understand it, the provision, as it is presently drafted in this clause, mirrors the equivalent provision for England and Wales as contained and approved in the Criminal Justice Bill currently under consideration in another place. All I have to say is that it would be extremely regrettable that the powers of investigation should be significantly

361
less effective and more limited north of the Border than south of it in dealing with this very serious problem.
The noble Lord will be well aware that, for instance, when a procurator fiscal is precognoscing a case he has of course power under Clause 49(2) to require the possessors of documents to produce them.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wonder if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me. In Hansard for 13th January, at the foot of col. 61 he will see that his right honourable friend said that the clause must be made more clear to clarify the right honourable gentleman's point and that they should consider how best that could be done. I should have thought that was an undertaking.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The noble Lord has been good enough now to direct me to the particular part of my right honourable friend's reply and I would simply say that, in the light of that, I should certainly be prepared to consider this because I do accept that the phraseology and the framing of this clause and the powers contained in it, should be equivalent north and south of the Border.
I do make the point, nevertheless, that I should have to be persuaded that those who may have valuable information and whose affairs are not being investigated as such should be excluded from the powers of investigation which are contained in this clause, because it seems to me that one is restricting the powers of investigation at the early and most opportune moment in a way which would not be consistent with the necessary balance which we are seeking here. However, I undertake to consider this further in the light of what my right honourable friend has said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. However, I would point out, as he did, that it is quite possible for the suspect to become a witness and the witness to become a suspect, so to speak. It is also not the case that anywhere other than in the Bill, so far as I am aware, is there any compulsion for a witness to produce evidence under threat of penalty by imprisonment. I am totally unaware of that. It flies in the face, if I may quote English authority, of the Royal Commission on Criminal Evidence, chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, I believe, in 1981. It was suggested to be completely contrary to the nature of criminal procedure. There is no such thing. It is entirely new.
In Scottish law we depend on witnesses voluntarily giving evidence, perhaps under a moral duty, but with no compulsion that they will be slapped into gaol if they do not. That is the problem here. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 44, line 41, at end insert ("provided that before questioning a person under this subsection the nominated officer shall caution hint").
The noble Lord said: It is very difficult to separate the arguments on these various amendments because this again raises the right to silence and the possibility of self-incrimination.
The purpose of the amendment is to impose a duty to caution when one reaches the stage of giving explanations of documents, and so on. In a recent murder investigation in Scotland there was an occasion, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, when the police officers were questioning a person who, in the course questioning, became a suspect arising from an answer which he gave. Therefore, the police officer cautioned him and advised him that he, the police officer, wanted to question the suspect further and that any answers he might give could be used in evidence. Unfortunately, although a senior police officer, he forgot to include in the caution the fact that the person was not obliged to answer any questions. As a result, the evidence was ruled to be inadmissible and the case collapsed.
One can think of fewer more serious cases than that of the murder of a girl—if I remember correctly, a teenager. Are we really saying that serious fraud is more important than murder, that it is more important than any other crime? Are we saying that somebody can be forced to answer questions without any caution or right to silence and perhaps forced into a position where that person incriminates himself?
I have already referred to the Royal Commission which has completely thrown out that idea. It would be very unfortunate if there were less freedom for the subject in Scotland than in England. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I cannot accept the burden of the noble Lord's argument on this matter. It is important perhaps to see to what this amendment is directed. It proceeds in relation to Clause 49(2) and a notice in writing requiring a person to produce certain specified documents. Subsection (2)(a) provides that,
"if any such documents are produced, a nominated officer may—

(i) take copies or extracts from them;

(ii) require the person producing them to provide an explanation of any of them".

It is not to paragraph (a) that the amendment is directed. It is to the next paragraph, paragraph (b), which states:
"if any such documents are not produced, a nominated officer may require the person who was required to produce them to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where they are".
I should have thought candidly—
Lord Morton of Shuna: I apologise for intervening. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out where the amendment should have applied, so perhaps we can discuss it on the basis that it should have been after subsection (2)(a)(ii).
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think that in the circumstances I would have to look at this again. I am bound to say that this is a matter which arose under the last debate we had. At this stage I would not wish to answer the matter further, other than to say that obviously a question may arise if, for example, this clause were to be limited to the person whose affairs

363
are to be investigated, and all that follows. I give no undertaking in the matter but since I see now what is the purpose of this particular amendment I wish to consider it further. It does not appear to me to be relevant in its present place.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No 7:
Page 45, line 8, at end insert ("accompanied by the nominated officer or his representative wherever practicable")
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the circumstances where a constable is given a warrant authorising him,
"to enter (using such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose)".
and so on.
The purpose of the amendment is this. It is necessary in matters of serious or complex fraud that the person exercising the search warrants should know what he or she is looking for and, wherever possible, should not take more than is required under the terms of the warrant. In another place suggestions that police officers executing such search warrants should always be accompanied by a representative of the serious fraud office were met by the Government pointing out that there were certain circumstances of extreme urgency, or extreme weather conditions, which could prevent that happening. The Government agreed that it was highly desirable that the constable should be accompanied and it is to meet that situation that the last two words "wherever practicable" are included in my amendment.
It is necessary that a search warrant should not extend beyond what is required to be covered. Without wanting to go back into Queen Margaret Drive in Glasgow—we have had discussions on that in various places—it is also clear that what is recovered should not be wider than what is required or justified by the warrant and that the officer should know what to look for and how to recognise it when he finds it.
Police officers may be quite good at finding drugs. They are trained to find drugs and other articles, but whether they are trained to discover book entries or computer entries relating to fraud is not necessarily so. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am going to consider this matter but I am bound to say that I would not be disposed to accept an amendment which made it part of every warrant that the terms were to authorise a named constable to be,
"accompanied by the nominated officer or his representative wherever practicable".
That is for a variety of reasons.
It may well be that the warrant is sought only in order to obtain a perfectly identifiable document such as a passport. In ordinary fraud cases police officers are well accustomed to making searches and discovering quite sophisticated documents. As the noble Lord opposite is well aware, there are circumstances in
364
which the procurator fiscal may seek to have a warrant extended in order to allow other persons to accompany the constable for purposes of the search. I suspect that that is what the noble Lord opposite is seeking to do. For instance, he may have in mind the terms of Section 448(2) of the Companies Act.
I take the noble Lord's point and I should like to look further at it. However, I wish to make it quite clear that I could not possibly accept this provision as being a necessary adjunct of every warrant that is to be sought under this clause. I think the noble Lord will accept that if the phraseology which he has adopted were to be incorporated in every warrant, it could offer scope for enormous challenge as to the validity of the warrant and the propriety of its execution. For instance, where it had not been possible for the nominated officer or representative to attend, because it may have been one of many warrants granted at the same time to be immediately executed, an argument could then arise on the facts of whether it was or was not practicable for the person to go.
Perhaps the noble Lord will be content with my offer to look at this matter against the background of the Companies Act. I shall be very happy to do so because I see what I think he is seeking to obtain.
6 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am glad that the noble and learned Lord is prepared to look at this matter. Perhaps I may make the point once and then leave it. I have had 10 days to look at the provisions whereas the noble and learned Lord has been studying them for rather longer. We were told by his noble friend Lord Glenarthur on 9th December that they were not yet ready to be brought in and by that time identical provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill had already been published.
I am pleased that this matter is to be looked at again. I think it is a fairly serious point. I do not claim to have the wording right and I think that I could hardly do so from this side of the Chamber. However, perhaps I shall have other opportunities later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 45, line 21, leave out ("his client") and insert ("any client of his in respect of whom legal privilege is claimed in respect of any requirement under this section").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may make some criticism of the drafting of subsection (6):
"A person shall not under this section be required to disclose any information or produce any document which is an item subject to legal privilege"—
which I presume is a printing error—
"within the meaning of section 37 of this Act; except that a lawyer may be required to furnish the name and address of his client".
The obvious question is: which client? The aim is to sort out that question because even in Scotland there are lawyers who have more than one client. To put it quite clearly, it is:
"any client of his in respect of whom legal privilege is claimed".
I think that is perhaps what is intended but not clearly expressed. Presumably the lawyer says, "Yes, I have this document but I claim privilege for it". The next

365
question would be: "What is the name and address of the client in respect of whom you are claiming privilege?" because of course it is the client's privilege and not the lawyer's in that sense. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's explanation of this amendment and would observe that this subsection has a fairly respectable lineage. In fact, it is to be found in not dissimilar terms in Section 452 of the Companies Act 1985 and again in Section 105(6) of the Financial Services Act 1986. I think that subsection is of some importance. It reads:
"A person shall not under this section be required to disclose any information or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to disclose or produce on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court or on grounds of confidentiality as between client and professional legal adviser in proceedings in the Court of Session except that a lawyer may be required to furnish the name and address of his client".
So the words "his client" appear there.
In this subsection the privilege is not extended in detail. It is of course the privilege accorded by Clause 37 of the Bill. Noble Lords will find it defined there as:

"(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client, or

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

I should have thought that when the two are married up it is quite plain that the reference to "his client" in subsection (6) is the reference to "his client" in the definition of "items subject to legal privilege" in Clause 37 and thus the matter is clear beyond doubt. Perhaps with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is always interesting to receive these explanations. I have never been able to understand why it is necessary that one should not put in as clear and as short a frame as possible in one place in a Bill what is meant, even if it is repetitious.
No doubt if one leaps from page 45 to page 31 and one knows that legal proceedings are or may be in contemplation it is possible to understand what that means; but why not put it so that it is quite clearly expressed in one clause? If there is some reason why that cannot be done, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell us. However, I do not wish to divide the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Offences in relation to investigations tinder section 49]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 45, line 44, leave out ("or has reasonable grounds to suspect").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may in this case speak also to Amendment No. 10. This is a very draconian clause, which first of all deals with the person concerned in subsections (1) and (2). It creates an offence and if that person is guilty of that offence, under subsection (3) he may go to prison for seven years. The clause also deals with the penalty for failing
366
to answer the questions that may be required of him or failing to produce documents that may be required of him under Clause 49, for which he may go to prison for six months.
My amendments are concerned with the initial stages of that matter. A person has to know or suspect or have reasonable grounds,
"to suspect that an investigation under section 49 of this Act is being carried out or is likely to be carried out".
We have already discussed the difficulty of defining a serious or complex fraud. We hope that there will be only a few, but the estimate is that there will be between five and 10 a year. The person will not know—usually until the warrant arrives on him, I suspect—that the Lord Advocate has given a direction, because I doubt whether the Lord Advocate will advertise his directions. They will happen fast, and it is right that that should be so.
If someone "destroys"—that is one of the words in Clause 50(1)(b)—documents:
"which he knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect are or would be relevant to such an investigation",
he commits an offence. If it is what can be described as an ordinary fraud, one of the hundreds of thousands of ordinary frauds that take place in Scotland each year, how is he to have reasonable grounds to suspect that the Lord Advocate is likely to make a direction to operate Clause 49? It is impossible to say that, and therefore the amendment is directed to that issue. The person would only be guilty if he in fact knows or has a suspicion that an inquiry is likely to be ordered. One reaches a situation where a person is going to prison for seven years, and if under this clause he does not know and does not suspect, has reasonable grounds for suspecting, but never recognises that he has those reasonable grounds, that is a long time to go away for to consider that you should think more carefully.
That is proper when the person knows and when he in fact suspects, but if all that the Crown can prove is that he has reasonable grounds to suspect, which means that the Crown cannot prove that he did suspect, that seems entirely wrong. That is the reason for Amendment No. 9.
If the amendment were accepted, it seems to me that it would necessarily follow that Clause 50(2)(a) would become irrelevant, because that is a defence:
"that he did not know or suspect",
whereas under Clause 50(1)(a) the Crown has already had to prove that he did know or suspect. That is why I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I am disposed to support the amendment. When I first saw the provision I could not understand why it was thought necessary to put
"or has reasonable grounds to suspect".
After all, a person should not suspect anything unless he has reasonable grounds to do so.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have listened with interest to what both noble Lords have said. I feel a sense of déjà vu, because I recollect in debates on the Financial Services Act, when it was still in embryo, the

367
noble Lord opposite saying how difficult it was for the Crown to prove knowledge. I think that he then added something similar to the words which are here, "reasonable grounds to suspect"; that is to say, using an objective test to determine the issue, leaving open of course the defence that where, objectively, a person should have known, it would still be a defence for him to prove that he did not know or suspect that by acting as he did he was likely to prejudice the investigation.
Destroying documents in certain circumstances where an investigation is in mind may be a criminal offence, as I think the noble Lord opposite recognises; nevertheless, there is some cause to look at this provision again in relation to those words, and I am happy to do that. The noble Lord adverted to a point which is not covered by this amendment or Amendment No. 10 to which I shall return in a moment. It relates to the words:
"or is likely to be carried out".
He did point out, and I would of course accept, that the investigation which is likely to be carried out is the investigation under a direction by the Lord Advocate. It may be asked how that will ever be established and in what circumstances.
I should make it clear that what we have in mind is, for instance, the individual who may become the person whose affairs are to be investigated, who has good reason to suspect that all has been discovered; for example, the board of directors may have decided that day to report him to the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate for what was obviously a serious abuse of trust involving many millions of pounds. He could then embark upon the destruction, falsification and so forth of the documents which might be relevant to that investigation.
That is the kind of situation we have in mind in relation to Clause 50. Others have suggested to me in passing that the use of the words "any person" does not mean to say that it must be a person under investigation. It is difficult to try to postulate circumstances in which any other person, who is not himself under suspicion, would fall within that provision unless there had been some pretty clear announcement that an investigation was to be launched the next day, or something of that kind, which had been made public. I can only try to conceive of such circumstances, but I should have thought that it could only be circumstances in which some person other than the person whose affairs were being investigated would be involved. Or, putting it another way, perhaps one of the directors who was party to the decision to go to the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal, whoever it may be, then himself takes part, although he was not a party to the fraud, in falsifying or concealing or destroying the documents.
I have added this because although it does not fall within the amendment I felt it was appropriate to respond to something the noble Lord opposite has said. Perhaps I may say that in regard to the second amendment, Amendment No. 10, which deletes subsection (2)(a), I think there may be some degree of misunderstanding. I quite agree that a defence of this nature is unnecessary or superfluous in relation to an offence which requires proof of knowledge or
368
suspicion. But this defence relates also, and more particularly, to the second leg of the offence in subsection (1)(b), knowledge or suspicion that the documents would be relevant, as much as and probably more than the knowledge or suspicion that an investigation was in train or was likely to be in train.
The effect of removing this subsection would be that it would deprive the accused in such circumstances of what would obviously be an entirely appropriate defence. I do not think that is what the noble Lord opposite intended, but I have to say that is one of the reasons why I could not accept the second amendment, although I am prepared to look again at the first amendment to see whether there is any way in which we can meet the concerns which he has expressed without at the same time imposing an unrealistic burden on the Crown.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I hesitate to intervene in the Committee stage so late and also on a Scottish Bill, but I gave notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I might at some stage in the proceedings this afternoon comment on some of the points which seemed to me to be extremely important and which he has very kindly undertaken to consider.
I believe that his reference to the Financial Services Act was most apt because it is in the area of financial services and indeed banking transactions that Clause 50 of this Bill becomes most difficult. If a bank or a broker or any other financial institution, as an intermediary, has to decide for himself whether it is a fraud or whether it is a serious fraud or a serious and complex fraud before deciding whether or not he should try to dig out his computer print-out of five days ago or 10 weeks ago on a £10 million transaction on the foreign exchange market which he has wiped out automatically, I simply do not see how it can be done unless the Lord Advocate has at that point made it absolutely clear that there is a direction and there is a case or potential case of a serious and complex fraud.
The noble and learned Lord gave as an instance the possibility of a board of directors reporting to the Lord Advocate that in their view there might be a case for a direction. Suppose they ring up the bank and say, "We have taken this decision", and suppose the bank say, "That's a very interesting point. We don't actually happen to think (but we are not in possession of all the facts) that it is a serious and complex fraud; we think it is just a fraud".
What is the position there of the bank under the Bill as at present drafted? Have they reasonable grounds to suspect? Well, no, their lawyers advise them that so far as they know this is only a fraud. Therefore they are all right in not having kept records of the transaction which may have taken place some time ago and which in the normal course of business they may have destroyed. They may not have destroyed them, but they may have destroyed them.
All these areas which involve very large sums of money and where transactions are carried out by intermediaries in the financial services area in good faith seem to me to be the object of serious study when Clause 50 is looked at. If Clause 50 goes through as it stands, and even if it goes through, as the noble and learned Lord has undertaken to consider, in some

369
modified form of preserving the essence of the clause, and if this same wording or wording similar to it is used in the Bill for England and Wales, then I really see some major problems for the financial services sector.
I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could pay attention to what I say because I am raising a very serious problem.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The noble Lord was indeed good enough to give me notice of this point and that is why I anticipated his intervention to speak as I did. I always find it difficult to deal with essentially hypothetical cases. I think in the case which he instanced, even if—and I should have thought it highly unlikely—the Crown were to have proceeded against the bank, there would be no doubt that the bank would have a defence under subsection (2)(b). But I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter. Obviously since I have undertaken to consider the point raised by the noble Lord in his Amendment No. 9, this is something which I can again consider in that context.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged both to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble friend Lord Williams. As I said on another occasion, it is always pleasant to have an intervention from sombody other than the noble and learned Lord opposite and myself taking part in Scottish criminal debates. I ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 11.
Page 46, line 24, at end insert ("or that he reasonably believed that if he complied with a requirement he would thereby incriminate himself").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to add to the end of this clause in subsection (5), where it says:
"In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for acting as he did".
The amendment would add:
"("or that he reasonably believed that if he complied with a requirement he would thereby incriminate himself')."
This is an amendment which was discussed in another place on the other Bill. I have had made available to me the briefing supplied by the Law Society of England. This suggests that the defence, as it is in subsection (5), would, from precedent, be available only in cases of inability to comply rather than unwillingness to comply. If that is right, it would obviously be essential to have something wider put in. But in my submission, as the right to silence and the right not to be forced to incriminate oneself are most important, it is appropriate that that should be spelt out. It is for that reason that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have to say that at the present moment I am not disposed to advise the Committee to accept this amendment for the reason which I suggested. That is that it would seriously weaken the effect of the provisions in Clause 49 if a person were able to refuse to answer questions or to
370
produce documents if he believed that he might thus incriminate himself.
The only person who would be likely to benefit from such a provision would be the person who had knowingly committed a fraud: he might be able to ensure that the necessary evidence did not fall into the hands of the prosecution. That seems to me to produce the wrong tilt of the balance which both the noble Lord opposite and myself were concerned to secure and to which he referred in his opening remarks. I therefore regret that I cannot accept this amendment. I am advised that there is a similar provision in the English Bill and that this has remained unchanged. I hope that I am correct in that respect. Accordingly, I cannot accept or even undertake to consider this for the very reasons that I have suggested. It tilts the balance too far.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I am encouraged to intervene by the noble Lord who wishes to hear other voices. I have listened with great interest to the debate about whether we should to some extent depart from the principle that no one is bound to incriminate himself. I had understood at earlier debates that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepted that he would have to look again at various proposals which were designed to obviate this risk.
Do I understand on this occasion that he is saying that, even though it is clear that the person concerned may incriminate himself, nevertheless he is not entitled to what I understand is the usual defence in both English and Scottish law that no one—whether a witness or an accused person—is bound to incriminate himself and that he has a right of silence. Is that now to be departed from in this instance?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: No, I am not departing from that. I undertook to deal with an earlier amendment which the noble Lord opposite proposed in Clause 49 which was to take out words in Clause 49(1) in relation to any other person—that is to say a person other than the person whose affairs are to be investigated—whom he has reason to believe has relevant information. It is in that context that I was prepared to look again. That was consistent with what my right honourable friend said in another place. I make clear that I consider that it would be tilting the balance too far to provide that he should be entitled to refuse to divulge information.
It is appropriate to remind noble Lords that anything said is covered by Clause 49(5). Perhaps I may read it to the Committee. It says:
"A statement by a person in compliance with a requirement imposed by virtue of this section may not be used in evidence against him".
That may perhaps answer in part the point which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was raising.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. However, it does not appear to me that the noble and learned Lord has answered the point at all.
The "person" under Clause 50(5) is a person who may be an ordinary witness, not the person being

371
investigated. He may not be guilty of the serious or complex fraud but if he answers the questions or produces the documents, or whatever, he may be incriminating himself on another completely separate offence. What is to happen in that situation? That is not dealt with at all. Clause 49(5) says only that the statement is not used in evidence. But as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, there are often cases of police questioning where the statement made by the suspect is not admissible. But certainly the documents that are found, or the information that is found as a result of the statement, are admissible. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider this matter further—it is a very important issue—and will be prepared to consider it again. If not, I shall have to ask the opinion of the House.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38, Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Aylestone. L.

Morris, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby. L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,E

Kilmarnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dundee, E.

Ampthill. L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bauer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beaverbrook. L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Boardman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ferrier, L.

Brabazon of Tara. L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Broadbridge. L.

Gardiner of Parkes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marylebone, L.

Carnock. L.

Hesketh, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hooper, B.

Cox, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cross, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Layton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Denning, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lyell, L.

Dormer, L.

Malmesbury, E.

372

Marley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Rodney, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Selborne, E.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Mottistone, L.

L.

Mountevans, L.

Swinfen, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Onslow, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Renton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lord, I think it might be helpful if I said something about this evening's business now. The original idea was that we would have reached rather further in the proceedings than we have at the moment. We thought that we would be well into the Pilotage Bill by seven o'clock. Therefore when we have finished this Bill it now looks as though I shall be moving the right form of words to ensure that we put off the Pilotage Bill until after the adjournment business has been completed. However, as we have just had a Division, it is useful for the House to know what is in our minds.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it will be helpful for those who are involved in the Pilotage Bill to know—shall we say?—that the Report stage of the Bill will not be taken before a quarter to eight.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that that would be a reasonable suggestion.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Disclosure of information]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 46, line 30, after ("prosecution") insert ("of a serious or complex fraud in respect of which direction has been given under section 49 above, or an offence relating to inland revenue")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to bring the Scottish Bill into line with the English Bill. The comparable clause in the English Bill is Clause 3(1) in which it is stated that where information subject to the obligation of secrecy under the Taxes Management Act 1970 has been disclosed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and so on, to a member of the Serious Fraud Office, that information may be disclosed by any member of the Serious Fraud Office, first, for the purposes of any prosecution of which that office has conduct, and secondly, to any member of the Crown prosecution service for the purpose of an offence relating to the Inland Revenue but not otherwise.
Clause 51(1) says that:
"information may be disclosed by the Lord Advocate for the purposes of any prosecution of which he has the conduct".
The number of prosecutions in Scotland of which the Lord Advocate has the conduct is quite considerable. The purpose of the amendment is to restrict this permission to disclose exactly to the same level of permission as is in the English Bill.
I may well—indeed, certainly will—have got the wording wrong; but I hope that the sense of the amendment will meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord. Otherwise, it drives a complete horse and cart through the obligation of secrecy. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am happy to assure the noble Lord that we have it in mind to be in line with the English Bill in this matter. He is right in suspecting that I am not happy with his drafting, and I think that it could be improved upon. An amendment will be brought in another place. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 46, line 37, after ("prosecution") insert ("of a serious or complex fraud").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is almost exactly the same: to bring the Scottish provision into line with the English provision under Clause 3(3). The problem in the drafting is that it is the Lord Advocate who appears in the Scottish Bill and the Serious Fraud Office which appears in the English Bill, Therefore, it is necessary to add the restriction that it is the prosecution,
"of a serious or complex fraud".
I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My understanding is that the equivalent provision of the English Bill is that such information may be disclosed
"for the purposes of any prosecution in England and Wales or elsewhere".
The clause deals with the disclosure of information which is obtained under these provisions and is subject to an obligation of secrecy under an enactment other than the Taxes Management Act 1970. I think it justifiable that such information should be capable of being disclosed for the purposes of any prosecution, whether in Scotland or elsewhere. If an offence, which may be a very serious case indeed—for example, the laundering of drug trafficking proceeds—comes to light in this way, it should I think be pursued.
I made clear in response to the previous amendment that I am willing to accept a limitation in the special case of information obtained from the Inland Revenue. However, I do not think it right to introduce any further limitation of this kind. I should point out that the existing provision is on all fours with the equivalent provision of the Criminal Justice Bill.
I am bound to say—I think I said "any"—that the terms that I have in fact are,
"for the purpose of a prosecution in England and Wales or elsewhere".
I do not think that it has been amended. Nevertheless, I understand that to be a more general purpose, and not subject to the restriction which obtains in regard to the previous clause. I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Committee may not be entirely surprised that after the events of a few minutes ago I do not intend to take the opinion of the Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 46, line 50, leave out ("(b) to any competent authority;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 16 as they are linked in a sense. They are also probing amendments. It is far from clear, and it appears to be very wide indeed, as regards the kind of information that may be supplied and to whom, because the competent authority is:
"any body having supervisory, regulatory or disciplinary functions in relation to any profession or any area of commercial activity;".
That could hardly be wider. It is apparently to enable the giving out of unspecified information which may be only rumour, suspicion or suggestion to any such body in almost any country. It is a wide suggestion and could have disastrous effects on perfectly innocent people. They may be affected by rumours which come from a country on the other side of the world and suddenly find themselves de-barred by their professional or commercial body. I tabled the amendments in the hope that we might have clarification of what was intended. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: It seems to me entirely proper that the Lord Advocate, or one of the nominated officers, who acting in the public interest has obtained certain information in the course of investigations into serious or complex fraud, should be able to bring that information to the attention of professional or supervisory bodies who also act for the protection of the public and have a legitimate interest in the conduct of their members.
I might take as an example a situation where the Lord Advocate might investigate a suspected serious fraud by a firm of solicitors and find that they are mishandling their clients' money. After investigation it might be concluded for various reasons that no criminal offences had occurred or at least that no criminal prosecution should take place, but nevertheless serious professional misconduct falling short of criminal activity had been revealed—serious breaches of the solicitors accounts rules might, for example, come to light. It would be quite wrong, I suggest, for the Lord Advocate to be compelled to turn a blind eye to such matters, and worse still for him to have to stand idly by while the conduct continued and members of the public continued to entrust their funds to that firm of solicitors. It would be quite unacceptable for the Lord Advocate to have to say, when the scandal ultimately broke, that he had been well aware of the situation but had been powerless to act.
I have chosen an example in the legal profession because I can more easily comprehend such an example, although it is not one I suggest should ever occur. I believe that it is one which the noble Lord opposite will also understand. However, I am sure that examples could easily be drawn from other professions or areas of commercial activity.

375
These amendments would have a further, and particularly serious consequence in that, by seeking to delete from the Bill subsection (5)(d), they would weaken our efforts to deal with international fraud by restricting the exchange of information with competent authorities in other countries. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that the increasing complexity of business affairs and advances in communications and technology have resulted in it being commonplace for commercial activity to extend over many countries and legal systems. I therefore suggest that nothing is done which might curb the international response of the appropriate authorities to misconduct on an international scale.
It is for that reason that these bodies are set out as competent authorities for the purposes of subsection (5). I hope that now clarifies the matter for the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is always a pleasure to note the speed at which the noble and learned Lord can read. I took in as much as was possible at that speed and I shall read what he had to say. In the circumstance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 47, line I, leave out ("investigation of an offence or").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which follows in terms an amendment made by the Government in the English Bill to Clause 3(5)(c) of that Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to bring the Scottish Bill into line with the English Bill, or, if that is not acceptable, to discover why not. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am happy to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported in respect of Clauses 48 to 51 with an amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 19th February), Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
In doing so, I should like to thank noble Lords opposite for supporting the major new drug trafficking provisions. It is perhaps not surprising, given the nature of this particularly pernicious and contemptible crime, that an unusual degree of harmony has existed during consideration of these provisions. I think it important that the force of our collective intent to deal harshly with people who make money out of the misery of drug addicts has been demonstrated unequivocally.
I am grateful for what has been done by the noble Lord opposite and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, concerning the other provisions of
376
the Bill. If the criminal law is to be respected and supported by the whole community, it needs to build on a well-developed consensus; that is, in your Lordships' House and in another place as well as in society at large. I am confident that the Bill meets this test of acceptability.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, I apologise for the fact that he has had to leave the House. The Bill makes remarkable changes to the law relating to drug trafficking. As I endeavoured to explain a week or so ago, and earlier, I am not happy with the drug trafficking side of the Bill because I fear that it may not work and because it is not sufficiently severe in dealing with drug trafficking. Something needed to be done, but it is a pity that the Government did not choose to take what I should have thought was a simple and more severe way of dealing with such people.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, as I have already indicated, it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should take the adjournment business now. I think it would be helpful if again I repeat that we shall not come back to the Pilotage Bill before 7.45 p.m. I therefore beg to move that the Report stage of the Pilotage Bill be postponed until after the Nightwear (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1987.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill
7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to put right a technical defect which has recently emerged in the 1986 Social Security Act. The Bill is short, but it is essential if we are to carry out our policy of directing effective help with maternity and funeral costs where it is needed most. I should like briefly to remind your Lordships what that policy is and why such a change is needed. I shall then explain what the defect is in the 1986 Act, and shall set out the effect of the new Bill.
It is widely acknowledged that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. In the Green and White Papers on reform of social security which we published in 1985, we proposed to concentrate effective help with maternity and funeral costs on people on low incomes, in or out of work. The payments would be made out of the social fund. As noble Lords may recall, this is a new fund to be set up to replace not only the maternity and death grants but all lump-sum payments of supplementary benefit for special needs.
On maternity we are proposing a flat-rate amount as a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing for

377
a baby. We announced shortly before Christmas that that amount would be £80—over three times as much as the current maternity grant. People on supplementary benefit or family income supplement will be eligible unless they have any capital over £500, in which case the excess will be taken into account. From April 1988 recipients of income support or family credit will be eligible in the same way. This will avoid the need for a separate income test. People will be able to get maternity payments from 11 weeks before the expected birth to three months afterwards—like maternity grant but more generous than the supplementary benefit limits. On the other hand, people will get maternity payments for adopted babies—unlike maternity grant but like supplementary benefit.
There are three further points which I should stress. First, maternity payments will be grants and not loans. Secondly, they will not be constrained by the budget of the social fund. If someone meets the criteria she will get help. Thirdly, there will be help for mothers under the age of 16 if their families are receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement. In such cases the family will get the same rate of maternity payment as a mother aged over 16 on a low income would get.
Our proposals for help with funeral costs will allow all people on low incomes to pay for a funeral if they cannot afford to do so. We shall pay the full cost of a reasonable funeral. The amount paid will vary according to actual expenses, but will be based on a list of items of reasonable expenditure. Similar arrangements apply now for people on supplementary benefit, but we are extending such help to people on family income supplement or housing benefit as well. From April 1988 those receiving income support, family credit or housing benefit will be eligible. This means a very substantial increase in the number of people who will have effective cover for the cost of a reasonable funeral if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves.
Again, I should point out that funeral payments will be made to those who meet the criteria, without regard to any budget. And they will not be recovered from the claimant's own income. But in order to concentrate effective help where it is most needed we shall, first of all, take account when making funeral payments of any insurance policies relating to the deceased person which can be put towards the cost of the funeral, and any savings which the claimant has over £500. That is in line with our current arrangements. But the lump-sum payment of £1,000 proposed for widows from April 1988 will be disregarded in full. Secondly, if the estate of the deceased when it is settled turns out to have money in it to pay for the funeral then the payment will be recovered from it at that stage.
The new arrangements will be handled sensitively and with a minimum of detailed questioning. By using income-related benefits as "passports" we shall avoid a separate income test. We are cutting out some of the detailed supplementary benefit rules. People will be able to apply for help quite easily by post, although they will also be able to see a member of staff in person if they prefer.
Perhaps I should just say a brief word here about funerals for war pensioners who die of their war disablement. These will continue to be handled
378
separately from the general system of help with funeral costs. But we are also improving that scheme. At present a war pensioner's family can only get help if it asks the war pensions welfare service to arrange the funeral. From April, the family will be able to arrange the funeral privately and be reimbursed. I think I can safely say that this has been greatly welcomed by war pensioner associations.
Those are our proposals. I shall now briefly say why the present Bill is needed. The 1986 Social Security Act provided among other things for payments to be made out of the social fund to meet maternity and funeral expenses. Detailed rules on those payments were set out in regulations which were laid in December. But the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments then questioned whether the power in the Act to make regulations included—as we had believed it did—the power to define how much those payments should be. We accepted that its doubts were well founded.
With hindsight, it is clear that a few words were simply left out of the 1986 Act. I should stress that there was never any suggestion during the course of the 1986 Bill—either by us or by the Opposition—that we were giving up the policy we had previously announced of specifying the level of help available. In other words, it is basically a technical defect in the Act. Naturally I regret that, but I hope that noble Lords will accept that we should not be deflected from our policy by such an accident.
That brings me to the present Bill. It has only two clauses. The first clause seeks to amend the 1986 Act to remedy the defect which I have just described. It simply enables regulations to be made, not only to prescribe who should get help with maternity and funeral costs but how much that help should be—whether in relation to particular items of expenditure or otherwise.
The second clause contains the Short Title—the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987. It also contains a standard provision—similar to that in the 1986 Act—relating to Northern Ireland. This would enable an order to be made in council, subject to the negative resolution procedure, for purposes corresponding to this Act.
We have also said that we shall revoke the regulations which have already been laid. Subject to Parliament's agreement, we intend to lay a fresh set of regulations along similar lines in due course under the powers which the Bill is designed to provide. That should enable the much-needed reform of help with maternity and funeral costs to go ahead as intended from April this year. We do not believe that it would be right to abandon that reform simply because of a technical error, unfortunate though that error is. The proposals I have outlined again today mean that we shall direct effective help to those who really need it. The Bill will enable us to achieve that, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for explaining this short Bill so clearly to us.

379
I thought there had been a record number of amendments to the Social Security Bill which we passed last year and which is now the Social Security Act, and it does not reflect credit on anyone concerned that we now have to have another short amending Bill. I accept, as the noble Minister said, that it is just a technical Bill, but the time of Parliament ought not to be taken up with these technical defects which should have been dealt with last year.
I want to ask one or two questions this evening. At Committee stage we may want to raise other points. I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that the maternity grant and the funeral expenses will not be subject to cash benefit limitations. I understood that from the other place. But, if there is no cash limit for funerals and maternity, will that decrease the total in the Social Fund? Will that mean that there will be less money available for other grants for single payments, for instance?
I want to ask one or two specific questions. I was glad that the Minister said that war pensioners were to be in a different scheme for funeral grant. Does that apply to soldiers who might be killed in Northern Ireland or while they are part of a United Nations force in some other country, or does it only refer to war pensioners from the last world war?
As regards the maternity grant of £80 it has been emphasised in the other place that this is a question of a grant and not a loan, but I understand that these payments will not be constrained by the budget of the Social Fund. Therefore may I ask the noble Minister to confirm that, so far as concerns the maternity grant of £80 to people who are entitled to it, there will be no question of the Social Fund running out of money and then not being able to pay what is needed?
The present position is that there is £25 available under the maternity grant scheme, and everyone understands that that is really not sufficient, but the more important question is: what about the future of single payments, which I understand are to be abolished under the present legislation so that the maternity fund of £80 will be a one-off and will not be supplemented by single payments for people who might be in special need?
As regards the funeral grant, the system with widows getting a grant of £1,000 will not be effective until 1988, as I understand it. Therefore, meanwhile, if a husband dies after April 1987 there will be no £30 and no £1,000. I should like to have an answer to that question. I should also like to know how many people will lose on this death grant change, and also how many people will lose out on the maternity grant?
If we take the question of the under-16s, to which the noble Minister referred, I agree with her that ideally one would want the under-16 pregnant girl to be looked after by her family, and the Minister said that her family should look after her and the money should go to the family. But, sadly, there are many broken families, many problems, many teenagers leaving home and single parent family children and other young girls who are not in a family situation. If the Minister is saying that maternity grant for the under-16s can only go to the family of that girl and she has no family, then we have to ask how is she to be
380
helped? Does she go on to supplementary benefit, or is there any other way in which she can be helped through social security?
Those are just a few points. I know that we shall have another opportunity to go through this Bill, but for this evening those are the main questions. I hope that the Minister or her noble friend will be able to give answers to some of those points.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the technical reasons for the introduction of this Bill have been explained by the noble Baroness, and they were also set out in the notes that her department was kind enough to circulate. It all sounds simple, but it raises a number of quite important questions. First, there is the matter of how the error that this Bill corrects came about. It stems from an all-party amendment successfully moved and carried by my noble friend Lord Wigoder which, if preserved in the Bill, would have introduced an independent right of appeal and made the Social Fund subject to regulation rather than the Secretary of State's directions and guidance.
Panicking at the prospect of what a truly independent appeal system might do to their fund, the Government responded with a much weaker alternative to Lord Wigoder's proposal. So anxious were they to get the Bill and this weaker appeal system through before the Summer Recess that they rushed the redrafting, with the result that they now need this little Bill to make the maternity and funeral mechanism workable.
That is a technicality which we can accept, but we now want to know more about the power of the Social Fund Commissioner who is to be appointed by the Secretary of State in lieu of the independent tribunal proposed by my noble friend. We know from Section 35 that he has power to appoint the Social Fund inspectors to whom dissatisfied claimants will presumably be able to apply. With a cash limited and largely discretionary fund, however, it is obviously much more than merely a matter of technical concern to know how this system will be applied. That is still not clear.
In particular it is vital to know whether claimants will have the right to be present or to be represented at hearings on their own cases. Official figures on appeals against single payments decisions under the old system show the significance of the appellant either being present or being represented when his or her case is being considered. In those cases where such representation took place the percentage of heard appeals decided in the claimants' favour was 35.7 per cent. as opposed to only 8.1 per cent. when neither the claimant nor a representative attended.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that claimants under this fund will have a right to an oral hearing. It is not sufficient to say that it is up to the commissioner to decide, because surely this is something that should be made clear in Parliament. I know that it is not in the Act and cannot be put into the Act by amending this amending Bill. Nonetheless, a statement by the noble Lord appearing on the record will go a long way to alleviating concerns on this score.

381
A good deal of attention has centred both in the other place and outside Parliament on the amount of £80 proposed for the maternity grant. The Government have chosen supposedly to target on the needy, and the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Lyell, said in the other place on 9th February, at col. 113, that it was of the essence of the Bill,
"that an increased number of people in the targeted groups will get more than they would have received previously.".
But that unfortunately would not appear to be the case if the maternity grant is set at £80, because the average payments made under the current, shortly to be abandoned, system, taking the grant element and the single-payment elements together, were higher than that figure in 1983. Therefore the Government's proposal is lower in cash terms and in real terms than the average which was available to mothers on supplementary benefit in 1983, when payments in the range of £170 to £190 to young mothers in real poverty were not uncommon. In future the Social Fund will presumably be prohibited from making such payments to meet real needs.
I gather, furthermore, that the department's own list of basic maternity items adds up to £187-45 and many would say that that is very much at the lower end of the range. Another selection which covers nappies, a push-chair, bottles, a basic layette and so on, which has been sent to me today, brings us up to over £200. Of course one has to remember that the nappies are not just a one-off cost, but a continuing cost. If the Government are serious about targeting, they are certainly missing the mark by a very wide margin.
If this is intended to discourage childbirth among people who cannot afford children that is also wide of the mark, because it is not the child's fault that it has been born in such circumstances. It is the child's welfare that we are concerned with. Those born to poor families or to single parent families have enough disadvantages without being discriminated against from day one.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—whether this exiguous payment should be available to young mothers under 16—the number is not high. It was 1,390 in 1985, and the cost would therefore be low. On the question of principle, Mr. Major said in another place that there was a genuine dilemma which is moral as well as administrative. Were the Government to extend the principle to those under 16 years of age, they would overturn a longstanding principle of supplementary benefit which they believed to be correct; the principle that a child under the age of 16, even if she has given birth to a child, remains the dependant of her parents or guardians. This, however, seems to conflict with an equal and opposite principle that under family law all mothers have full responsibility to care and provide for their children. Under Section 17(1) of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976 a mother of any age is liable to maintain her child.
In recognition of this conflict Mr. Major said that he was not categorically ruling out taking some action, but that it was a matter for regulation rather than primary legislation. Later he said that if the young girl and her family were living in poverty they should be given the assistance they needed and that in those
382
circumstances the maternity grant would be paid, though he seemed to be in some doubt whether such payment should be to the young mother or to her parents. The Minister also seemed to imply that it is the poverty of the parents of the young mother that should be the test. But this would take no account of cases in which the girl had left home—which I venture to suggest in such cases might happen quite frequently—and it seems to me that it is the person responsible for caring for the child who should have the payment. It should be the mother's circumstances, rather than her parent's circumstances, which should act as a trigger. The matter ought to be cleared up while the Bill is in this House. I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances that these girls will be eligible in their own right.
On the question of funeral expenses, it is obvious that the deliberate and long erosion of the death grant has made it virtually meaningless. It is now barely enough to buy a good wreath. But the Government's targeting policy is not well designed, as was pointed out when the Social Security Bill was in the House.
Means testing is particularly repulsive at a moment of maximum stress. What happens if death occurs over a long weekend with a bank holiday tacked on? Does the next of kin have to wait until the following Tuesday, say, to know whether he or she qualifies before getting in touch with an undertaker? What evidence will be required? Surely it would be much better if everyone knew they could get a grant for funeral expenses on a simple application, particularly as the Government have written into the Act under Section 32(4) that Social Fund payments to meet funeral expenses may, in all cases, be recovered out of the estate of the deceased. Bureaucracy at the time of bereavement would then become minimal and the grant would in effect become a loan if the size of the estate so warranted. What could be simpler or fairer than that? Also can the noble Lord say what level of expenses will be considered "reasonable"? A simple funeral nowhere costs less than £350 and it might be £550 in some areas.
Turning briefly to the balance of loans and grants to be made from the fund, it appears from the debates so far on the subject that only maternity and funeral expenses will be the subject of grants and that all other needs will be by way of loans. There have also been mysterious references to "community care". It is quite unclear what aspects of this very wide ranging concept are to be catered for under the Social Fund. I know it is intended that phase 1 of the fund, coming into effect in April this year, will deal only with maternity and funeral grants. But I do not know on what occasion we shall have the opportunity of discussing the operation of the fund when it is fully functional. It would be much appreciated if the noble Lord could enlighten us on the meaning of "community care" in this context.
There is also the still completely mysterious question of how a cash limited fund—the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, touched on this—will function when demand is, by its very nature, unpredictable. Will there be an actual fund with real money in it? Will that be topped up from time to time? If the money, whether notionally or actually available, starts to run out, will all claims be scaled down or will there simply

383
be a cut-off point when there is nothing left in the kitty? It was always difficult to see how this would operate, especially with loans going to people who, by definition, would find it extremely difficult to pay them back. If loan repayment income is seen as an important ingredient in the fund then its prospects of being maintained at realistic levels are, frankly, bleak.
It is not surprising that this little Bill should reopen debates we had when the parent Bill, now the Social Security Act 1986, was in this House, because the serious flaws in that Bill are now with us on the statute book. As implementation draws nearer it is natural that anxieties should increase. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, will be able to allay some of those anxieties this evening.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because most of the points that I wished to make have already been made either by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, or by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock. 1 should, however, like again to underline the question of the mother aged under 16 who at present will not receive the grant, the grant going to her parents if, and only if, the parents are on supplementary benefit. I can see the administrative neatness of this arrangement and I can see the argument that it is desirable that such a girl, herself little more than a child will be looked after by her parents. But the reality is that it will not be like that for a considerable number. As we know, a number of these girls break away from home and they are on their own. There are not a very large number. As my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock pointed out, whether they are under 16 or not, they have full responsibility for the well-being of that child.
In these circumstances, is it too much to ask the Government to think again and to find some way in which it will be possible to give the grant to the mother under 16 and not to her parents if it can be established, through workers in the social services department, by the local authorities or by some other means, that in reality the girl is not living with her parents, is not being supported by her parents and has somehow or other to maintain both herself and her baby? It will not be a huge charge but it could avoid some very disagreeable, painful cases, which will otherwise most certainly arise.
The other point I briefly want to make is of a quite different order. But it is not, I think, totally out of place as this is, after all, a Second Reading. It was only this week in the Synod that a debate took place under the title, "The Welfare State is not only for the Poor". This new Act, with the amendments that we are discussing tonight, underlines the Government's attitude which is that the welfare state is only for the poor.
I know the Government's argument is that they concentrate resources where they are most needed. But there are a very large number of people who are not on social security benefit, but who are only a very little above that level. I am thinking, in particular, of the funeral grant and the case of a couple of old age pensioners with a very small amount of money of their own, and a very small income above that, who are not social security benefit recipients. For people of that
384
sort, paying the funeral costs for whichever of the partners goes first is a very heavy drain indeed.
Do we really have to say that these benefits must be limited to people who have not been on social security benefit? So many of the people we are talking about—and we all know them—would not go anywhere near a social security office. They are people who, by being very careful, very frugal and denying themselves a great deal, have been able to pay their own way. But to have to produce £300 or more to bury a husband or a wife would be very hard indeed. The same applies to the benefits to be paid for mothers, although in some ways that is a less serious matter than the question of the funeral grants, which I can see bearing very harshly on people just above social security benefit level.
Can there really be no flexibility? Are the Government so wedded to the idea that the welfare state is only for the poor? I know that is not how they put it. They say that the welfare money is focused on those most in need. But can they, at least, look again at what they mean by "need" if they cannot take a wider view of what the welfare society should be all about?
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend has once again explained how we propose to go about the reform of the maternity and funeral costs and why we need to correct a technical defect in the 1986 Act to carry that programme through. I shall not go over all that ground again, but I should like to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made this afternoon.
First, some noble Lords have commented on the technical defect in the 1986 Act which has given rise to this Bill. They have focused on the fact that a mistake has been made. Frankly, I do not think that there is all that much more we can say on that matter. A mistake has been made and we regret that. But now that the error has come to light, the sensible course is to put it right. That is what we are doing.
Today's comments have concentrated on the area of policy rather than on the technical points of this very small Bill. So far as concerns maternity and funerals, those who followed the progress of the 1986 Act will recognise much of that as familiar territory. We initiated a general debate on our reform proposals with the publication of the Green Paper in 1985. That was followed by the White Paper, the 1986 Act and extensive discussions here and in another place. Ultimately, Parliament approved the substance of our proposals.
A number of speeches today have simply sought to reopen the old debates yet again. Arguably the place for some of the more detailed queries we have heard is in any debate on the eventual regulations for maternity and funeral payments, rather than in a discussion of the principle of a technical measure to correct a defect in the Act. For example, it is the regulations and not this Bill which will set the level of maternity payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made a number of points and I shall attempt to answer some of them. One that she mentioned was what would happen to serving soldiers in Northern Ireland. If they are killed

385
there, they will not be pensioners and will not be covered by this Bill. Moving on to single payments, they will be replaced by the social fund and so hopefully will not become the problem which I think she felt they would be.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the under 16 year-old mothers who have left home. They should be the responsibility of the social services and dealt with on that basis. More than likely they will be in the care of the local authority. When a child or young person is in the care of the local authority, either voluntarily or because its parents have requested it, or if for some reason it has been committed to care, the local authority is responsible for the welfare of that child.
As regards a child under 16 who is at home, the Government considered this matter carefully during the passage of the Social Security Act last year and still remain unconvinced about the arguments for extending provision to mothers under 16 years of age. To do so would overturn a long-standing principle of supplementary benefit which we believe to be correct; namely, that a child under 16—even if she has given birth to a child herself—remains the dependant of her parent or guardian. Where a young mother under 16 is in a low income family receiving one of the passported benefits (supplementary benefit, or in future income support or FIS, or in future family credit) the family will be eligible for a maternity payment. Additionally, where the family is on income support a young person under 16 will continue to receive free milk tokens during pregnancy, and she will be able to pick up free vitamin pills from health clinics.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, drew my attention to a matter which is not really covered by the Bill, but I shall attempt to answer. The noble Lord asked about the social fund commissioner, who is outside the terms of this modest Bill. However, there will be two opportunities for a case to be reviewed. The first will be by a senior officer in the local office, and the second will be by an independent social fund inspector appointed by the social fund commissioner. The applicant will certainly have a chance to put his case in person in the local office, though not necessarily to the officer who takes the decision. Beyond that, this is a matter to be discussed with the social fund commissioner, who is not yet appointed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also mentioned the maternity grant of some £80. Most people can and do provide for the cost of having a baby. It would cost £80 million to restore the maternity grant to its 1969 value. The level of the flat-rate payment for maternity costs was debated during the course of the Bill's passage last year. In the Government's view, a flat-rate payment over three times as much as the current maternity grant, payable to low income families in or out of work, represents a reasonable contribution to the costs of having a baby. It will balance the position of those with low incomes in society, who at present receive no more than the £25 grant, with those on supplementary benefit who at present can receive help with a detailed list of items if—and I stress the word "if"—they have need of those items. I am informed that the average figure of take-up today is of the order of £68.
386
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a point concerning those close to the borderline on the cost of funerals. That point really comes back, as in so many other aspects of the matter, to the £500 capital rule. The fact of the matter is that a line must be drawn somewhere. Under this Government, we lifted the capital rule in 1983 from £300 to £500. In real terms, that was a considerable improvement. There will always be a difficulty on the point because the line must be drawn somewhere and there will always he someone who is just above or just below that hypothetical line.
The noble Baroness also asked why we could not pay the grant to people who are not on social security. Most people cope with the expense of a funeral. Over 90 per cent. of funerals are paid for from private resources. It would cost £140 million to restore the death grant to its 1949 value and it would cost approximately £220 million to raise the grant to £350, which the department accepts is the minimum cost of a simple funeral. Obviously that is a considerable sum of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also wanted to know why people qualifying for help when a death occurs have to be means tested. First, the rules will be simple and clearly explained. The fund will meet reasonable funeral costs for people on low incomes who are responsible for a funeral and who need help to pay for it. People receiving income support, family credit, housing benefit, supplementary benefit or family income supplement in 1987-88 will be eligible without need. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also asked whether or not it really makes sense to continue the grant for everyone. I answered that point a moment ago.
In conclusion, I should like to stress that the new arrrangements for help with maternity and funeral costs are much-needed reform. I believe that is widely recognised. They will direct effective help where it is needed most, to low-income groups in or out of work. I appreciate that some noble Lords may want to use the opportunity of this Bill to reopen the whole policy debate again. Maybe they would like to delay the reforms and carry on with the present unsatisfactory system. But there is a time for debate and a time for action. Now is the time for us to put our proposals into practice. This short Bill will enable us to do that. I trust that noble Lords will support it.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may thank him for answering so many questions. There is one further point on which perhaps he can advise me. In regard to widows, if the husband dies after April 1987 the £30 death grant will not be available. The £1,000 widow's grant does not begin until 1988. I asked in my speech whether this was not a rather unkind gap and I wonder whether widows are to be left in a situation in which they will not receive £30 and they will not receive £1,000. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me, I shall of course accept that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should indeed like to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should also like to put one question. Perhaps I may thank him for attempting to give us as full an answer as he possibly could to the questions that arise in a very tricky field in which even the old hands often get extremely confused. The point which I wish to put to him concerns the under-16 question.
In response to a Question from a Member of another place, the Minister said:
"If a young girl and her family are living in poverty, they should be given the assistance they need. In the circumstances that he envisages"—
that is, the circumstances which the Member putting the Question had envisaged—
"the maternity grant will be paid".
I wish to be clear on whether or not that is in fact the policy of the Government. Will the maternity grant be paid to child mothers under 16 where the mother is living in poverty with her family?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for his question, and I shall write to him.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Nightwear (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1987
7.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The draft regulations amend the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which impose requirements concerning the flammability performance of nightwear. its testing, labelling and advertisement. Perhaps I may make it clear at the outset that the regulations which were introduced on 19th December 1985 by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara are in no way affected by the order which is before the House this evening. The only effect of the draft regulations which we are discussing tonight is to postpone until 1st September 1987 the coming into force of the requirements of the 1985 regulations which relate to babies' garments. The date of 1st March 1987 remains the operative date on which the other requirements of the 1985 regulations relating to children's and adults' nightwear come into force.
I think it will be helpful if I remind your Lordships of the principal requirements of those regulations. Adult nightwear must carry a label showing whether or not it meets flammability standards. Nightwear garments for children over three months and under 13 years of age must pass a flammability test. The exceptions are children's pyjamas, and cotton terry towelling bathrobes which, however, must carry a label showing whether or not they meet the flammability standard. Babies' garments—meaning any garment which fits round the chest and which is
388
intended to be worn only by a baby under three months of age—must carry a label showing its flammability performance.
Those requirements are set out quite clearly in an explanatory guide to the 1985 regulations which the department published in September 1986. Following its publication, the trade associations representing United Kingdom suppliers put before us two particular concerns. First, the requirements were not included in the draft regulations on which the consultation took place at the end of 1984. Secondly, it was felt that the requirements for babies' garments went beyond the context of nightwear garments.
Perhaps it would be helpful to noble Lords if I explain the background. The first draft regulations circulated to interested parties did not propose any requirements on garments worn only by babies under three months of age. In considering the response to the consultations, the department decided to include babies' garments in the regulations. But because it is not practicable to distinguish between garments worn by young babies—that is, babies three months of age and under—during the day or indeed by night, it was necessary to draft regulations to include all babies' garments which fit around the chest. This requirement is justified on policy and safety grounds.
Your Lordships may recall that the 1985 regulations are intended not only to improve the level of protection in nightwear and other garments commonly worn as nightwear, but also to increase awareness of fire risks. Accordingly, this requirement was incorporated in the revised draft regulations which were introduced into Parliament in November 1985. As I have already said, it was my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara who introduced the regulations on 19th December 1985 to which your Lordships agreed.
At the same time a copy of the revised draft regulations was sent to all consultees. I have to say that, generally, suppliers in the babywear sector did not appear to have appreciated this change. The House will appreciate that babies' garments for sale after 1st March of this year in just a few days' time are already in the hands of retailers, and if these requirements were to come into effect on 1st March this would cause substantial upheaval in the retail and supplying market and might very well reduce the choice of consumers.
The department has consulted interested organisations. including consumer bodies and health bodies, which are prepared to accept the proposed postponement of the regulations until 1st September 1987. With that explanation, which I hope noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, will find acceptable. I invite your Lordships to approve the draft regulations before the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, this is the second time within a few minutes that we have had to deal with amendments to unsatisfactory government regulations. I agree with the noble Lord and I appreciate that, with his usual lucidity, he has shown

389
what an expert he is in babies' nightwear. I should not want to compete with him on chest measurements of babies under or over three months old.
There has obviously been a muddle here. The noble Lord said that the suppliers did not appreciate the changes that had been made. I accept that this amendment will put something right that has gone wrong. I do not want to go any further than that because I know that mistakes and muddles can happen during the passing of what are, most of the time, very complicated regulations. I hope that the regulations, as amended, will now speed on their way and that the noble Lord will make sure that no babies are burned.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her acceptance of the draft regulations. Perhaps I should just say that the Government's regulations were not totally unsatisfactory. It is never entirely one sided; it is invariably six of one and half a dozen of the other. Perhaps the Government did not make it clear to the industry exactly what was required and perhaps the industry did not entirely understand what we were saying.
I recall having babies in my family. They always appeared to be of a certain size and toddlers appeared to be a little bigger. The regulations refer to any garment, whether or not nightwear, for a baby under three months, having a chest measurement exceeding 53 centimetres and so on. I am not sure that all babies or toddlers conform to the statistics. The noble Baroness and I are at one in seeking to ensure that babies, youngsters and indeed adults are given products as safe as the law and the industry can produce. This is what we have tried to do in the 1985 regulations and in the regulations before your Lordships tonight. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 10 [Information and directions as to joint arrangements]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("or proposed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 64. As drafted the Bill would not allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to seek information about pilotage arrangements from CHAs under Clause 10 until those arrangements had actually been made. I believe, and I hope that noble Lords will agree, that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to seek such information before arrangements are
390
finalised. These amendments will enable him to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 9, line 32, after ("made") insert ("or proposed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Compulsory pilotage]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 10. line 38, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding any bye-law,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 66 to 71 inclusive, and Amendment No. 76. What I have to say very much covers the ground of Amendments Nos. 72 and 104 but I gather that your Lordships would like them to be considered separately. However, I hope to cover quite neutrally the ground that lies behind them.
I say "quite neutrally" because the point arises out of a decision by an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House of which I was a member; in fact, a dissentient member. I raised the point with the noble Lord the Minister in Committee without tabling an amendment. I am very grateful to him that, with his usual industry, care and courtesy, he has dealt with it in Amendment No. 72 about which I shall not speak because it is controversial. The controversy necessarily involves the decision to which I was a party.
Perhaps I may describe quite shortly the position which arose. There is an ancient body in the Port of London called the London Guild of Watermen. It has the customary right—nothing written—to move ships and pilot ships within a dock or between moorings. That can be up to about two miles. In fact, in the test case to which I referred, it was a distance of three-quarters of a mile. There was no question but that the waterman who was navigating the ship in question was doing so lawfully.
Perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to look at Amendment No. 68. It relates to Clause 15(1) which is in virtually the same terms as the section we had to consider from the Pilotage Act 1913 and going back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. Your Lordships will see that it deals with the right of an authorised pilot, who previously would have been a licensed pilot, to supersede any pilot who is not authorised or is unlicensed. That was tested by a licensed pilot claiming the right to supersede the perfectly lawful and accepted navigation of the watermen.
The majority of your Lordships' appellate committee held that the terms of the predecessor of Clause 15(1) were subject to a by-law made by the London Pilotage Authority whereby the ship in question was not deemed to be navigating in the part of the London pilotage district which was in question. The result of that decision is that Clause 15(1) is in a misleading form and something must be done about it one way or another. Perhaps I may just say this. First, I have raised this in the form of "notwithstanding any

391
by-law", which would have been in accordance with my dissenting judgment in the case in question. That is unsatisfactory because the by-law-making power must be in doubt after this Bill passes into law. I need not go into the technicalities of why I say that or why I do not think it is by any means a certain point.
Secondly, the decision in McMillan v. Crouch is not limited in its effect to the London Guild of Watermen. It would apply to any unlicensed pilot or to any unauthorised pilot in future.
Thirdly, there is obviously a conflict of interest between, say, the London watermen and the pilots but not limited to them. There are also the interests of the shipowners and the competent harbour authorities. Of course there are the financial interests of each of those persons in question.
Fourthly, the issue is not limited to London. I understand that there are bodies similar to the London Guild of Watermen in some other ports and although, as I have said, I do not want to enter into the merits of the matter, that is another ground where it seems to me that the amendment proposed by the Minister is superior to my solution.
May I just say a word as to the procedure? I do not propose myself to do more than move the first amendment formally and of course withdrawing it would be subject to your Lordships' consent. I would ordinarily then not propose to move the other amendments unless your Lordships indicate that you would like to have them moved in order to test opinion. In that case I shall move them formally. Otherwise I think it is more proper that I should leave the matter to the spokesmen for the various conflicting interests. My Lords, I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has explained the intention of these amendments is to remove any possibility that local by-laws will derogate from the operation of these clauses which concern these authorised pilots. However, I have to say that I believe that the references to by-laws are inappropriate since any by-laws made under the existing legislation—and I imagine that we are here talking about Section 38 of the Pilotage Act 1983—will lapse when the Bill comes into force and the Bill contains no equivalent by-law-making powers. The noble and learned Lord did refer to that and that certainly is our opinion on the matter.
As far as Clause 13 is concerned, the circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory for a ship will be specified in the pilotage direction and the provisions of that clause concerning the use of an authorised pilot, or a master holding a certificate, will apply straightforwardly to any ship navigating in those circumstances. Similarly, the provisions of Clause 18 will apply to any ship in such circumstances. I believe that amendments to these clauses are not necessary.
As far as Clause 15 is concerned, there is equally no question of by-law exemptions. But I have accepted that a CHA should have the power to direct that the provisions of this clause concerning supersession of an
392
unauthorised person by an authorised one shall not apply in relation to ship movements within their harbour. This we shall come to in my Amendment No. 72. It will then be for the harbour authority to decide whether movements of ships between moorings and into and out of docks need be subject to compulsory pilotage and, whether the supersession provisions should apply. So I think the Bill does properly cover the work carried out by the Thames watermen in the Port of London. This provision may also be found to be of use in other ports where the movement of ships is, under existing arrangements, carried out by groups other than licensed pilots such as dock pilots.
I hope with that explanation—and obviously we are going to have a debate when we come to Amendment No. 72—that the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, particularly as to why he has not sought to amend the clauses other than Clause 15. I was going to ask him about that on Amendment No. 72.
I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 65 and I take it from your Lordships' silence that you are content that I should not move the subsequent amendments which have been grouped with it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 71 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 43, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Subsections (1) to (4) above do not apply—

(a) to a ship which a person is piloting or ordered to pilot in a dockyard port (within the meaning of the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1965) in the course of his duties as a servant of the Crown; or

(b) if the competent harbour authority has directed that those subsections shall not apply to movements in its harbour or a specified part of its harbour for the purpose of changing a ship f1rom one mooring to another or of taking it into or out of any dock, to a ship being moved in that harbour or that part for that purpose;

but nothing in paragraph (a)above shall be construed as derogating from any immunity which affects such a ship as there mentioned apart from that paragraph.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 104.
The new sub-paragraph (b)in this Amendment No. 72 is intended to deal with the position of the London Guild of Watermen, a matter which has just been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and which was also raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
As was mentioned in Committee, the Thames watermen carry out certain movements of ships from mooring to mooring, and in and out of docks. Their position is recognised by by-laws made under Section 38 of the Pilotage Act 1983. As the noble Lord, Lord Simon, explained, it was established in the case of McMillan v. Crouch that pilots were not entitled to supersede them when they were carrying out work covered by the by-law.
I take the view that it would be in line with the philosophy of the Bill for decisions on how far ship movements of the sort carried out by the watermen should be brought within the pilotage regime to be a matter for the CHA to consider in the light of local circumstances. It will be open to the CHA to impose compulsory pilotage on vessels moving within the port, or to exempt them, as is the case on the Thames at present. This amendment will allow a CHA to direct that the provision that normally allows an authorised pilot to supersede an unauthorised person shall not apply to work of this nature. It will therefore be possible, if the PLA consider it the best arrangement in local circumstances, for watermen to continue to operate as they do at present. I understand that there have already been discussions between the PLA and the Company of Watermen, and I welcome that.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 104, this clarifies a point which is ambiguous under existing legislation. It makes clear that a ship being moved within a harbour is navigating and can therefore be brought within compulsory pilotage should the CHA decide that it is necessary. Where that is not thought necessary and such work is carried out by groups other than licensed or authorised pilots the CHA may of course protect its position by suspending the normal arrangements for supersession by pilots under the new paragraph in Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to make these amendments. Amendment No. 72 is designed to accommodate the wishes of the Port of London that watermen who may or may not be sufficiently qualified to serve as authorised pilots will be able to navigate vessels.
If my view of the amendment is right, that is most remarkable because the White Paper explaining the Bill states in paragraph 1 of the introduction:
"in recent years there has been a growing concern about the costs of using British ports, in particular compared with those on the continent, and the Government is anxious to seek ways of helping to reduce these costs. One element in a port's costs is the cost of the pilotage service."
the paragraph ends:
"the cost of pilotage is often greater than it need be."
The provisions in the amendment will certainly not help to reduce costs. Neither will the amendment assist in operational efficiency. It is in complete conflict with the need to keep pilot numbers in line with real needs. It will defeat the concept of one pilot serving a ship from sea to berth, or vice versa. It will allow the imposition of an unnecessary or additional second pilot who will have to be paid for. It will legalise the preservation of out-of-date practices—something which the Bill supposedly is designed to stop.
In the broader sense, the amendment in some ways makes a mockery of the remainder of the Bill. Why legislate rights for authorised pilots and then make a provision allowing a CHA to circumvent those rights? How will a CHA be able to have regard to the amendment to Clause 2, approved only two weeks ago? That amendment allows a CHA to have special regard to the hazards involved in the carriage of dangerous goods or harmful substances by ship.
394
Do the Government realise that the effect of the amendment now proposed will be to enable oil tankers, gas tankers, vessels carrying nuclear waste—in short, vessels with great potential to damage the environment and destroy life—to circumvent the provisions that the Government believe are essential? Moreover, the amendment will allow such ships to be in the charge of unauthorised people who may well be incompetent and unqualified. I should point out that a 38-tonne tanker lorry driver must have a licence, yet a ship carrying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of oil, gas or atomic waste, a ship that is difficult to control and subject to the elements with a potential to devastate urban areas, will be allowed to navigate and manoeuvre without necessarily having a pilot.
Indeed, the way that the amendment is drafted, should a CHA exercise its option—and obviously it is the intention that they can do so; otherwise the amendment would not be included in the Bill—then any vessel could exercise the right to navigate in a compulsory pilotage area regardless of any pilotage direction requiring such a vessel to be in the charge of a pilot or a certificate exemption holder without being in the charge of either.
However, in debating Amendment No. 47 on the first day of the Report stage, on 12th February, the Minister said at col. 838 of Hansard:
"Having decided which vessels are to be subject to compulsory pilotage, the next step required under Clause 13 is that such ships shall be under the pilotage of an authorised pilot or under the pilotage of a master or first mate possessing a pilotage exemption certificate."
The master of a vessel wishing to navigate within the defined terms of this amendment could do so himself regardless of whether he was aware of local by-laws regulating and controlling safety and navigation, regardless of the quality of his qualifications, regardless of his local knowledge or lack of it, and regardless of his competence. Is that really what the Government wish to have?
On the same date, reported at col. 754, the Minister said:
"The noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in speaking to his Amendment No. 16, recognised that there were certain disadvantages to it. I am bound to say that we feel the same thing. My first worry concerns the practical implications of what is proposed. It seems to me that a CHA could find itself employing half of its pilots and entering into contracts of self-employment with the other half … It might be possible to make such an arrangement work, but I find it difficult to envisage. It is not a very economical or practical way of organising a pilotage system."
In my view, what the Government now suggest in the amendment would allow that situation to develop, specifically in London and possibly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested, in Bristol and one or two South Wales ports. If that is so, clearly the Minister will be well advised not to proceed with the amendment.
Leaving that aside, the effect could well be disastrous to the safety of navigation in any of the ports of this country. We believe that the amendment is ill-conceived and is in conflict with the principles underlying the general nature of the Bill. Therefore we oppose the amendment and hope that the Government will consider withdrawing it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when I first saw this amendment I was extremely surprised. Although the first part under paragraph (a) is perfectly normal and acceptable, if paragraph (b) had formed part of an amendment put forward by the Opposition I have a feeling that my noble friend would have been on his feet declaring that this was a wrecking amendment. It strikes me as most odd that the Government should put forward what one of their own supporters would consider to be a wrecking amendment.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I feel that my noble friend should give this matter further consideration. It would be wise of him if he wishes to push this through at this stage—it is late in the evening and I honestly do not think that a Division would be helpful to anyone—to bring forward amendments at Third Reading next week to ameliorate the situation.
It is remarkable that a Bill that dramatically reduces the rights of licensed pilots should concern itself with protecting the supposed rights of unlicensed persons. I understand that there are only some 20 to 25 watermen on the river of London doing any form of pilotage work. I am sure that the pilots themselves would be the last people to want them put out of a job. However, I am sure that some formula can be produced that will allow them to work to their normal retirement age but not to be replaced at any time by anyone else; thereby allowing the work to be done by properly trained pilots who are accustomed to the increasing complexity of modern navigational equipment and the increasing complexity and size of various ships.
The declared aims of this legislation are to reduce the amount of pilotage, to reduce costs and to introduce berth to sea pilotage and sea to berth pilotage; and to sweep away archaic practices. So far as I can see this amendment seems totally counterproductive. The wiser approach might be that since an unlicensed pilot commits no offence until a licensed pilot has offered his services and been refused, when a competent harbour authority authorises pilots it should be a matter of agreement that authorised pilots will not challenge certain areas of unlicensed activity.
It is getting late and although I could go on talking for a long time there are other amendments to be dealt with so I shall not continue. However, I beg my noble friend to give this matter serious consideration, even if he will not withdraw his own amendment, in order to ameliorate the situation before we come to Third Reading.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is right in what he suggests will be the effect of this amendment—and certainly he makes sense to me—it seems to negate a great deal of the underlying purpose of the Bill. It appears to put the competent harbour authority in a position in which any ship being moved from any buoy—the expression that is used in the Bill is "from one mooring to another"—will entail, in the case of ports up rivers, the major part of a movement which requires the skilled services of pilots. I think that all of
396
us can understand the noble Lord's wish to protect the historic position of people such as watermen. As a member of the Fishmongers' Company I can say that we actively support the watermen and their watermanship by promoting an annual race. As a matter of fact, half of them usually sink, but we have a very soft spot for these people.
I think we are in a very dangerous area. There are many legal eagles here and the saying is that hard cases make bad law. I think that this is a classic example of what happens when one tries to deal with one rather limited problem and in doing so opens the floodgates to a whole series of unthinkable situations around the country.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, perhaps I may throw a small crumb of comfort to the Minister. I think the noble Lord is making a mountain out of a molehill in many ways. It is nonsense to suggest that the watermen who have been doing this job for many years are in some way incompetent and not capable of performing this work. They have been doing it for very many years. Watermen undergo an apprenticeship and learn their craft over a number of years. To state that the practice might be unsafe is not absolutely correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned potentially dangerous ships such as gas tankers. In my experience in London these ships tend to operate in the lower reaches of the river, where there is far less likelihood of one of the watermen operating and having to move a ship. It refers to the old enclosed dock system, and only Tilbury is still operating in that way in any sense. I think that perhaps the case is being slightly overstated.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I agree that the case is being slightly overstated. After all, the amendment only refers to:
"changing a ship from one mooring to another or of taking it into or out of any dock".
The intention of the amendment is only to provide a means by which certain groups of people other than licensed pilots can continue to carry out the work that they have traditionally done provided that the CHA judges that it is not necessary to bring such work within the formal pilotage regime. Of course the principal group of people about whom we are talking and who are involved in this matter are the London watermen.
My noble friend Lord Strathcona said that perhaps we had a soft spot for watermen. However, other groups of people such as dock pilots in certain other ports could be involved in a similar way. I have no reason to believe that the CHA will wish to apply subsection (7)(b) more widely than is necessary for this purpose. The subsection allows it to restrict its operation to part of the harbour. Nor can we see that any CHA can see advantage in applying subsection (7)(b) in a port where those other groups are not already working on ship movements.
I think it is worth pointing out that it is possible under existing legislation for any authority to make by-laws having a similar effect in other ports, but none

397
has chosen to do so. I believe that it is right for the CHA to determine this matter as it thinks best in the light of local circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, particularly mentioned hazardous cargoes. At present the by-laws in the London pilotage district which provide for the work carried out by the watermen effectively preclude the imposition of compulsory pilotage on vessels moving between moorings or in and out of docks. It may be that the PLA will decide such movements should remain outside the scope of compulsory pilotage. If it does decide that such movements, at least in respect of certain ships, which might include those carrying dangerous cargoes, should be subject to compulsory pilotage, I accept that if subsection (7)(b) has been involved it may not be able to ensure that vessels moving in these circumstances actually take a pilot.
There may be a case for allowing the CHA to apply subsection (7)(b) more selectively so that as well as applying in only certain parts of the harbour it applies only in relation to such types of ships as it specifies. I should like to take that point away for further consideration.
In view of the hostility to this amendment, which as I say was merely trying to cater for a small group of people to continue to do the work that they have done for many years, I should perhaps like also to consider the possibility of whether the amendment might not be tightened up to apply only to areas where arrangements such as these presently exist. That was a fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he suggested that the provision might be widened to extend to other parts of the country.
I hope that noble Lords will allow this amendment to pass this evening with the undertaking that I have given to consider those particular points.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): Is the Minister moving Amendment No. 72 or is he withdrawing it? I am not clear.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that I moved the amendment a long time ago and we have had a debate on it. However, if that is not the case I shall move it again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Declaration as to draught etc. of ship]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 3, leave out ("An authorised") and insert ("A").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 73 is conveniently taken with Amendment No. 74. They are purely drafting amendments. The result of accepting Amendment No. 72 will be that there will be people navigating ships as pilots who are not authorised pilots. Therefore Amendment No. 73 substitutes the word "A" for "An authorised", so that Clause 16(1) reads:
"A pilot may require".
398
The second amendment, No. 74, has a similar effect. Instead of referring to, "Each authorised pilot" it will read "any person". I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord's amendments to Clause 16. There is certainly a case for extending the provisions of this clause so as to cover anybody who is piloting, whether or not he is an authorised pilot. Such people would include deep sea pilots and, as my Amendment No. 104 makes clear, groups such as dock pilots and watermen. It is hard to argue that such people should not be given information about the ship they are serving. Certainly I am prepared to accept the amendments.
I agree that similarly there is no good reason why the provisions of Clause 19 about misconduct should not also apply to such pilots as widely defined. However, I am advised that the Bill already has this effect since the term "pilot" for the purposes of the Bill is defined as:
"any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof—.
Amendment No. 78 is therefore unnecessary.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I had not spoken to Amendment No. 78. I agree that it is not strictly necessary. The draftsman has carefully and advisedly altered his language from "an authorised pilot" to "the pilot". I would have no doubt in construing that to apply to any pilot whether authorised or not. The words that I propose to insert through Amendment No. 78 would make the matter clear. On the other hand, I do not like adding unnecessary words to any statute. If the Minister advises your Lordships that it is unnecessary, and I tend to agree with that, I shall in due course not move that amendment. In the meantime, I must thank the Minister for accepting Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("each authorised pilot") and insert ("an) person")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Authorisedpilot not to be taken out of his area]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 12, line 29, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted is here based on Section 41 of the Pilotage Act 1983. However, since the provision makes it an offence to take a pilot without reasonable excuse beyond the point to which he has been engaged to pilot the ship, it seems unnecessary to provide also that it should be an offence to take him outside the area for which he is authorised. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to be disagreeable and again raise a question on the government amendment but, after all, the purpose of our debates is to find out why the Government are doing certain things and to criticise them. On the face of it, it would appear that the Government are removing a provision that is important in the context of ensuring efficient and cost-effective pilotage services. The removal of this subsection could result, for example, in a master, when on a deadline to make the time at the next port, preventing the pilot from slowing down the vessel sufficiently for him to disembark or over-carrying the pilot for whatever reason, thus losing for that period of time his services to the port for which he is authorised.
That removal of a similar provision in existing legislation will impair rather than enhance efficiency. Should the clause be amended as proposed, it could be taken literally by a master and allow him to believe that, provided he tells a pilot on boarding or afterwards that he is engaging him not only to pilot the vessel out of the port for which the pilot is authorised but also to the next port—that could be Rotterdam for a London pilot—it would appear that the master would not be committing an offence. The pilot, short of driving the ship ashore, which is an offence under Clause 19, would have little choice but to comply. Apart from possible vast personal inconvenience, that would again not enhance efficiency. Perhaps the Minister will say that the points I have made are relevant to that. If so, the Government should reconsider the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot see what the noble Lord is objecting to in this amendment. The clause, as redrafted, will say that the provision applies up to the point to which the pilot has been engaged to pilot the ship. If the pilot has been engaged to pilot the ship slightly beyond the area, that will be an arrangement which is made beforehand. It is reasonable to suppose that the ship will stop and let the pilot off at the point to which the pilot is engaged. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the amendment, but I will have another look at it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Facilities to be given for pilot boarding and leaving ship]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 12. line 44, leave out ("fails without reasonable excuse to comply with") and insert ("without reasonable excuse contravenes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Misconduct by pilot endangering ship or persons on board ship]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Limitation of liability in respect of pilots]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert ("at the date when the loss or damage occurs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 80. These are minor amendments to clarify a point which would otherwise be doubtful. The liability of CHAs and agents will in a particular case depend in part on the number of authorised pilots that they employ. These amendments specify that the number will be the number at the time of the incident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 13, line 48. at end insert ("at the date when the loss or damage occurs").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 14. line 24, leave out ("default") and insert ("omission").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Abolition of pilotage authorities]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 15, line 1, leave out ("three months") and insert ("such date as the Secretary of State may direct").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 86, 105 and 107. In Committee, I agreed to look again at the provisions concerning the timetable that will apply to the process of winding-up the existing pilotage authorities, particularly taking account of the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, that sufficient time should be available to Trinity House, once the position on assets and liabilities is clear, for it to put firm proposals to the CHAs for the use of its services as an agency. It was also pointed out that it is equally necessary to allow the Pilotage Commission sufficient time to draw up the proposed schemes.
These amendments attempt to deal with these points. First, the requirement on the commission to submit schemes not later than three months before the appointed day is replaced by a power for the Secretary of State to set a date for submission. In setting such a date he will naturally wish to set as early a day as seems possible after consulting the commission.
The second amendment to Clause 22 provides that the period between the Secretary of State making a scheme and the appointed day shall not be less than three months, so meeting Trinity House's main point of concern.
The amendments to Clause 31 provide some reassurance to the parties concerned, particularly to the Pilotage Commission, that the overall timetable is not going to be so rushed that a proper job cannot be done. They set a minimum period of nine months

401
from Royal Assent to appointed day, which is the shortest period during which we believe the necessary work can reasonably be carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, the Minister said that these amendments have been brought forward in reply to similar amendments that I moved in Committee. Certainly, as I said, they place a much clearer definition on the timescale which in certain instances was much too tight for the proper formation of an agency such as the one proposed by Trinity House. I am indeed grateful to the Minister for this. In relation to Amendment No. 107 where the timescale is increased to not less than nine months after this Bill is passed, I take it that the Minister is also at the same time in a way saying not more than nine months. In other words, it is not going on for ever, because certainly we want to have some date to work to. Would the Minister confirm that point? If so, I am very happy that he has brought forward these amendments, and I thank him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, obviously I cannot say "not more than nine months" but I hope it will be not much more than nine months.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. It is extremely difficult to get it right at this stage and I think the point the noble Lord has just made is one to which the Minister might give a little further thought to see whether there is a difficulty here. But otherwise I think we are grateful for what he has done.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, looking again at the wording, the amendment seems to me to leave a rather ungrammatical sentence. It leaves out "three months" and says,
"not later than such date as the Secretary of State may direct".
Then it will go on, "before the appointed day". Is that what it means?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, by leave, I have read this through and it did not look too bad to me. On the point about its not being grammatical, I cannot see much wrong with it myself.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 15, line 4, leave out from ("(including") to end of line 6 and insert ("in particular, liabilities in respect of pensions payable in respect of staff or former stall) and the arrangements to be made in accordance with section 23 below as respects their staff and any staff employed by persons licensed as pilots under section 12 of the Pilotage Act 1983 to whom the Commission considers the arrangements should also apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 83, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 83A, 84, 84A, 85, 90 to 93, and 94A, some of which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. These amendments again are intended to cover various Trinity House
402
points which came up in Committee. Amendment No. 92 is a drafting amendment to make clear certain of the clause's provisions. We intend that the staff of the existing pilotage authorities who are to be transferred under the terms of the wind-up schemes should be transferred to the successor competent harbour authorities, while recognising in some cases that it might be more sensible to transfer them to the Pilotage Commission. But the Bill as drafted at present does not expressly say so.
We also intend that the wind-up schemes may set out the compensation terms for any staff who are to be made redundant. Such staff will of course have a statutory entitlement under the employment protection legislation, but that entitlement is less than most employers offer to their redundant employees and it is only fair that the pilotage authority employees have the opportunity of being treated similarly. This amendment allows the wind-up schemes to set out such terms.
Amendment No. 83 is in part consequential on Amendment No. 92. It also allows persons employed by licensed pilots to be treated as employees of pilotage authorities where the Pilotage Commission considers that should be so. This is in fulfilment of the undertaking I gave in Committee on the debate on amendments put down by the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, and my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Strathcona. The main provision on this is Amendment No. 94, which we come to later. In addition, the wording "pensions in respect of staff or former staff" ensures that the entitlements of dependants will be secured, which was a point raised by an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, in Committee.
Turning to the new amendments Nos. 83A, 84A and 94A which I have put down, the first of these is a minor change to make it clear that the pilotage property, rights and liabilities of an authority falling within Clause 22(4), such as Trinity House, are to be transferred to the appropriate competent harbour authorities or to the Pilotage Commission. We envisage that the schemes will normally provide a transfer to the authorities, with transfer to the commission being a possibility held in reserve in case there are practical difficulties in immediate transfer to the authorities.
It had been suggested that as drafted the Bill left open the possibility of transfer to bodies other than the CHAs or the commission. This was not our intention and the amendment puts the position beyond doubt and in doing so meets what I think is the intention of Amendment No. 84, by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.
The second and third of these amendments clarify our intentions concerning the pension liabilities of pilotage authorities, particularly those of Trinity House. Some of these liabilities, including those relating to the staff of the Trinity House pilotage service, are not fully funded at present. Under these amendments, a scheme made under Clause 22 may include provision for such unfunded liabilities as exist at the appointed day to be placed upon a properly funded basis.
The cost of this will be one of the liabilities to be passed to the CHAs under the scheme. Such an arrangement would cover the proper funding of existing pension liabilities, not only relating to the staff actually transferred to the CHAs under the scheme but also relating to pensioners and other former employees and to pilotage staff whom under Clause 23(1)(a) Trinity House decides to retain. Staff who are retained for Trinity House's new agency company, Trinity House Agency Services or THAS, would fall outside the transfer scheme and THAS would be responsible for meeting their pension and other employment-related liabilities. But these arrangements would provide for THAS to be relieved of by far the most onerous of these liabilities, that relating to unfunded pension entitlements for past service. I hope noble Lords will agree that this will provide THAS with a fair start in life, as is our intention. I hope I have explained the amendments sufficiently. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having described these amendments and for meeting virtually all the points that I brought up in Committee and also the points which I intended to bring up in my Amendments Nos. 84, 85, 90, 91 and 93. I shall certainly not be moving those amendments in the light of the amendments which the Government have brought forward.
This was originally an extremely convoluted part of the Bill dealing with the transfer of assets and liabilities of the existing pilotage authorities. There were a number of points which were open to doubt, as the Minister has explained, and I can only say that I am extremely grateful to him for having met those points which were of great concern to Trinity House. They should now be in a much better position to get on with forming their agency. I am glad that the noble Lord the Minister has wished it a fair wind. I certainly do the same and I thank him once again.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I should like to echo what my noble friend has just said. This is a very complicated business and I must admit I am still a little obscure in my understanding as to how you convert an unfunded pension into a fully funded one. I am not clear where the liability is going to rest or what the cost will be.
Since I am now trespassing into dangerous areas of which at certain moments I think I have a comprehensive uderstanding though a minute or two later I realize I have not, I shall not pursue this matter further beyond echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has said. We are very grateful to the Minister and also for the efforts the department has made to relieve very real anxieties. I think it is excellent that this should happen. It is excellent that there should be a restora-tion of good relations between Trinity House and his department, and we are very grateful for his own part in this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord
404
Greenway and Lord Shackleton, for those remarks. I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, paid tribute to the work done by my department and, I would add, to the work done by Trinity House, together with the department, in finding these solutions to the problems.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may also express appreciation for the arrangements being made with regard to Trinity House. I ought to say that as a result of the words at the end of Amendment No. 84A I shall be looking very carefully at what was said on a previous occasion when we pressed for proper funding of the pilots' national pension fund, which we want to ensure is properly funded.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 15, line 15, leave out from ("schemes") to ("and") in line 17 and insert
shall provide for the vesting of any relevant property, rights or liabilities of that authority in any competent harbour authority the Pilotage Commission considers appropriate or in the Commission itself").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 15, line 19, at end insert
may require any competent harbour authority the Commission considers appropriate to make provision to secure that the future payment of any pension which is payable in respect of staff or former staff of the pilotage authority and relates to service before the appointed day is properly funded.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 15, line 20, at beginning insert ("Not later than three months before the appointed day").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 15, line 24, at end insert
("(5A) The modifications which may be made under subsection (5) above include the substitution for a provision for property of a person who is a pilotage authority to vest in a competent harbour authority or the Pilotage Commission of a provision for that person to retain that property and pay to the competent harbour or, as the case may be. the Commission such sum as may be agreed between them to be the value of the property at the appointed day.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No 87. This amendment meets the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in Committee. He asked that it should be made possible for Trinity House to retain certain of its pilotage services' physical aspects where that could be agreed with the CHA. Instead, Trinity House would make a financial settlement with the CHA based on an agreed valuation of the assets concerned. Such an

405
arrangement would facilitate the establishment of the agency service and might well be more convenient for all concerned.
Such an arrangement could obviously finally be agreed only once the overall disposition of assets and liabilities in a former Trinity district had been settled by the Secretary of State among the various CHAs involved. This amendment will allow what for convenience we may call the "cash alternative" arrangement to be included in the Secretary of State's scheme, and I hope will meet the point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House at this late stage, apart from saying once again how grateful I am to the Minister.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like the Minister to clarify a view which I hold, and which the pilots' organisation seems also to hold. It appears that there is a very strange suggestion here. Is the amendment proposing that a pilotage authority, instead of vesting its property in a CHA or the Pilotage Commission, may retain its own property but pay compensation to the relevant CHA or to the commission? If that is the position, then surely that is like paying for someone not confiscating one's property.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would not put it exactly in that way. As the noble Lord will he aware, the property—such as the boats which we are talking about—would in ordinary circumstances pass to the successor authorities which are the CHAs. In this amendment we are allowing them to make a settlement for cash instead if the present pilotage authority—Trinity House, for instance—wishes to hang on to them.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I must admit that I find a certain Alice-in-Wonderland character in this amendment. However, I am sure that it is all right. I am very grateful for what the Minister has done.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any capital gains tax liability on a sale of this kind? It is rather an unfair question to throw at him. However, it occurs to me that such a sale might be liable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, not without notice! It is more likely to be a capital loss, I should have thought.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 15, line 35, leave out from ("consult") to end of line 37 and insert ("the competent harbour authorities and pilotage authorities likely to be affected by the proposals and such persons or organisations as appear to it to be representative of the staff or former staff likely to be affected by them; and before making a scheme giving effect to those proposals the Secretary of State shall consider any representations concerning those proposals made to him by any such authority or by any person or organisation which appears to him to be so representative.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 88. The principal purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consider any representations made to him before he makes a scheme under Clause 22 which will effect the transfer of assets and liabilities of existing pilotage authorities to the CHAs. During Committee, both the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, argued that there should be an opportunity for authorities to object to what was being proposed by the Pilotage Commission. I think that there was general agreement that to include provision for a public inquiry would be to go too far and to put at risk the early implementation of the Bill. However, I have considered carefully what was said during our discussion and I believe it would be unsatisfactory for those whom the Pilotage Commission has consulted during the preparation of the schemes to have no opportunity of making known their views about the proposals which are put forward. This amendment therefore requires the Secretary of State to consider representations which are made by the interested parties.
The amendment also picks up two further points which have been put to us. In Committee, I accepted in principle an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, which would require the Pilotage Commission to consult not just the representatives of the pilotage authorities and harbour authorities concerned but the authorities themselves, and, following approaches from some of the Trinity House pilotage service pensioners, I have agreed that the commission should consult not only representatives of present pilotage authority staff but also representatives of their former staff. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, what the Minister has said seems to be satisfactory up to a point. However, under subsection (2) the Pilotage Commission is given responsibility for submitting to the Secretary of State proposals for schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities of pilotage authorities and arrangements also for the transfer of their staff.
Subsection (8), with which this amendment is concerned, provides that before submitting proposals for such a scheme the Pilotage Commission shall consult,
"such persons or organisations as it considers are representative of the competent harbour authorities, pilotage authorities and staff likely to be affected by the proposals."
The Government are making a very important change. The nature of the consultation which the Pilotage Commission must carry out is unchanged. However, the Government add that, before making a scheme giving effect to the commission's proposals, the Secretary of State shall consider representations made to him by a harbour or pilotage authority, or by any other person or organisation which appears to him to be so representative; that is, of the harbour or pilotage authority.
However, there is one omission. Why must the Pilotage Commission have obligations to consult representatives of the staff affected, but the Secretary of State is not empowered to consider representations by the staff on proposals made by the Pilotage

407
Commission whereas the other authorities are given that opportunity? Whereas the staff have such power in connection with the commission's proposals they are not given the opportunity to consider the matter before the Secretary of State submits his scheme? Can the Minister please look at that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall have to look at the point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has raised and write to him on the subject. I shall certainly want to read what he said before I make any remarks.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I take it that if I am right we shall have an amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, subject to the outcome of what has just transpired I should like to thank the Minister once again for meeting some of the points I raised at an earlier stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 15, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) References in this section and in section 23 below to a pilotage authority include references to any committee appointed by the authority under section 9(1)(e) of the Pilotage Act 1983.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. Amendment No. 89 meets a suggestion put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in Committee that the Bill, as drafted, would not cover the position of certain employees who, it appears, are employed not directly by Trinity House but by the local sub-commissioners of pilotage.
I accept that these people should be included in the winding-up arrangements. The amendment provides for that.
On Amendment No. 94, I undertook in Committee, when several of your Lordships referred to the position of pilot-paid crews or those employed by pilots rather than by pilotage authorities, to consider bringing forward an amendment to the Bill to cover their case. I accept that where persons working as part of the pilotage service are employed by the local pilots rather than the pilotage authorities, they should be provided for in the schemes for the winding-up of pilotage authorities in just the same way as if they had been directly employed by the pilotage authorities. I do not believe, however, that this will necessarily apply to all cases of employees of pilots. That is why the proposed amendments give the Pilotage Commission some discretion to decide in each case whether employees of pilots should be provided for within the proposals for schemes for the winding-up of pilotage authorities that the commission will put forward to the Secretary of State.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment should be made. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for Amendment No. 89, which meets the point that I raised in Committee.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward Amendment No. 94. If that is accepted, I shall not move Amendment No. 95. It is interesting to note that Amendment No. 94 states at paragraph (b):
"the contract of employment between the employee and the licensed pilot shall have effect from the appointed day as if originally made between the employee and the person by whom the scheme provides that he shall be employed".
It is interesting because the House turned down my Amendment No. 26, which made similar suggestions with regard to redundancy on the point of pilots' salaries. I do not propose to press the matter under Amendment No. 95A. I hope that further consideration may be given to it between now and Third Reading. I do not wish to press my noble friend, particularly as I am happy with Amendment No. 94. It is strange, however, that the goslings are being looked after in one way but the geese are not allowed to be treated in the same way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Transfer of pilotage authorities' staff]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 16, line 4, at end insert—
("(IA) Such a scheme shall provide

(a) in the case mentioned in subsection (3) of section 22 above, that the staff to whom the scheme applies shall be employed on and after the appointed day by the competent harbour authority there mentioned; and

(b) in the case mentioned in subsection (4) of that section, that the staff to whom it applies shall be employed on and after that day by such competent harbour authority as the Pilotage Commission thinks fit or by the Commission.

(1 B) Such a scheme may make provision for the payment of compensation to staff of pilotage authorities for any loss of employment which is attributable to any provision made by or under this Act but no such scheme shall affect any person's right to compensation otherwise than under the scheme")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not move.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 16, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Pilotage Commission considers that arrangements under a scheme under section 22 above should also apply to any employee of a person licensed as a pilot under section 12 of the Pilotage Act 1983—

(a)subsections (IA) and (1 B) above shall apply as if the employee were employed by the pilotage authority for the district for which his employer is licensed;

(b)the contract of employment between the employee and the licensed pilot shall have effect from the appointed day as if originally made between the employee and the person by whom the scheme provides that he shall he employed on and after that day; and

(c)without prejudice to paragraph (b) above, subsections (3), (4) and (5) above shall apply as they apply to the transfer of an employee of a pilotage authority but with the substitution for the references in subsections (3) and (5) to the pilotage authority of references to the licensed pilot")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (6)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 95A not moved.]
Clause 24 [Abolition of Pilotage Commission]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96.:
Page 17, line 7, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 10 and insert ("and the arrangements to be made as respects its stall including in particular proposals concerning the payment of pensions in respect of staff or former staff and any compensation to he paid to staff for loss of employment; but the scheme shall not affect any person's right to compensation otherwise than under the scheme")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to make explicit that the wind-up scheme for the Pilotage Commission should include provision for the payment of compensation to its current staff for early termination of their contracts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Functions and constitution of Pilotage Commission pending abolition]:
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 17, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("( ) the Commission shall give consideration to all proposals submitted by competent harbour authorities for the reorganisation of pilotage services under this Act and advise the Secretary of State as to their suitability to ensure safety of navigation in the ports and waters adjacent thereto:
( ) It shall be the duty of the Commission in fulfilling the function conferred on it by virtue of paragraph (a) above to consult such persons in the United Kingdom as the Commission considers likely to be affected by such proposals;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for again tabling the amendment that we discussed in Committee. I was hoping that the noble Lord the Minister, in the light of the way in which he has been reflecting on and. providing us with amendments for arbitration, consultation and appeals, might reconsider his attitude to the amendment.
To recap briefly, everybody agrees that the Bill will bring massive changes in the pilotage scene. John Moore, the Minister, when speaking to the pilots, said that the transition will be a difficult one. We are here handing over the whole setting-up of the regimes to completely new and unfamiliar bodies; in some cases, bodies with not much experience in matters concerning public safety and possible damage to the environment. It seems strange that no formal obligation is placed upon the CHAs to consider anyone at all—fishing interests, amenity bodies, other commercial interests, naturalists and environmentalists—before announcing their new regimes. That seems very strange in a period of massive change. The Pilotage Commission exists. It will not last for ever, therefore we are not saddling ourselves with a system which will hold up the parade once everything has settled down into its new form. We are charging the Pilotage Commission with the duties of sorting out
410
schemes under Clauses 22 and 27, and giving advice under Clause 25(1)(a). We have also charged them with another consultative task under the amendment with which we were dealing a moment ago.
Therefore, it seems to me logical to use the Pilotage Commission as a sounding board to which all other interested parties concerned with the safety of navigation in the approaches to harbours will have an opportunity of turning and making their voices heard before there are massive changes which are not always fully understood by those making them. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is familiar ground. When my noble friend moved an amendment in the same terms in Committee, he explained that he thought there should in effect be some sort of appeal procedure where a CHA was proposing to make major changes in local pilotage arrangements. It was suggested that there should be an opportunity for other voices to be heard. If I may say so, I think that may noble friend rather overstates the case: I am sure that any CHA will be made well aware of the views of local interested parties, and indeed any sensible authority will wish to make sure that that is the case. As far as the most important consideration for port users is concerned, that is the extent to which pilotage is to be compulsory, there is a statutory obligation in Clause 5 to carry out consultations with users.
There seem to me to be two particular objections to the amendment. First, it appears to require all CHAs to submit proposals to the Commission, and as I said in Committee this is a degree of bureaucracy which I believe is quite unnecessary and which could lead to delay in bringing in the new regime. Secondly, it would remove the power of the Secretary of State to seek the Pilotage Commission's advice in matters where this might be valuable but which would not be covered by the wording in the amendment: this would therefore limit the extent to which the Commission could contribute during this transitional period.
However, the underlying objection to the amendment is that it would involve the Pilotage Commission in second-guessing the judgments which the CHAs have reached concerning pilotage needs in their ports. Giving such a role to an outside body which, however well it does its work, has no local experience, will inevitably undermine that responsibility, and I submit worse than that, will take us back towards the present unsatisfactory arrangements. I think that many people involved in this matter agree that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot be any more sympathetic to the amendment than I was at the last stage.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this matter because I am rather disappointed that the Minister has repeated a statement he made at Committee stage. The Commission is given certain responsibilities: it is given responsibility under the Clause 25(1)(a) to give the Secretary of State such advice as he may request, and it is given responsibility under Clause 24(2) regarding

411
the disposal of property, rights and liability, etc. Therefore, we are not treating the Pilotage Commission as being an unimportant body. We are to abolish it but it has been given certain distinct powers until it is abolished. I recall that when a similar amendment was discussed at Committee stage, I suggested an amendment which provided that the Commission should give consideration to proposals submitted by the competent authorities but also included the power of the Secretary of State to request the Commission to give any advice that he may seek. It seems to me to be common sense to do both things. However, as the Commission has certain duties—it has to give a view on schemes—it seems to be common sense that something along the lines of the amendment should be considered by the Minister.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I have little to add to what I have said tonight and on a previous occasion. I agree with the noble Lord that the Commission is not an unimportant body. It has been given a great many tasks to perform in the Bill but I submit that that is not a task which should be added to those it already has.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, there is clearly no point in pursuing this argument. I am bound to say that I found one of the Minister's statements very curious. He said that if the commission has to give advice, the Minister cannot ask it to give advice. That seemed to me to be a curious tweedledum and tweedledee arrangement. If the Minister had said that he agreed that anybody had the right to ask the commission to pass comment. I should have understood what he was saying, which would be roughly speaking what I had in mind. However, the Minister appears to be adamant that the competent harbour authority will be the sole arbiter, essentially on commercial grounds, in a highly-competitive environment on all the conditions which apply to all ships entering or leaving the harbours for which it is responsible.
The worst that might be acceptable—although I have doubts about even that—in a stable environment is that we are laying ourselves wide open to the competent harbour authorities riding roughshod over the opinion of anybody who differs with them in any way about the regulations which they are introducing. Having made that comment, with the greatest of reluctance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 26 [Pilots' compensation schemes.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 18, line 12, after ("scheme") I insert—
("bb) Who are not at the relevant time holders of deep sea pilotage certificates,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 99.
412
At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Grey, put down amendments under which the bodies responsible for issuing deep sea pilotage certificates would have been obliged to suspend or revoke certificates which they had granted if they considered that too many deep sea pilots had been certificated. His concern was that many district pilots who already had deep sea certificates would take early retirement from district pilotage under the compensation scheme to be introduced under the legislation. Many of them-might then become full-time deep sea pilots even though they had previously made little use of their deep sea certificates, and the risk would be that many more pilots would be operating in the deep sea market than the market could properly bear, with a threat to the livelihood of existing full-time deep sea pilots.
Some noble Lords considered that the approach suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Grey, would not be acceptable because of the arbitrary power which the issuing bodies would have to revoke certificates. I had a good deal of sympathy with their views. This is obviously not an area in which one can please all sides: either the deep sea pilots will be unhappy if nothing is done to prevent an influx into the deep sea pilotage business of retired district pilots who have previously done little deep sea pilotage or the district pilots will be unhappy if those who already have deep sea pilotage certificates have them withdrawn.
My own view is that it is right to do something to prevent the disruptive effects of a sudden influx into the deep sea pilotage market of large numbers of pilots who have previously used their deep sea certificates only rarely. What I propose is that nobody who is holding a deep sea pilotage certificate at the time should qualify for compensation under the schemes of compensation for surplus pilots. If the pilot chooses to surrender his certificate he will become eligible for compensation, subject to the other requirements being satisfied. If he decides not to surrender it, he will not be eligible for compensation. The choice will be his. Even if he does surrender his certificate, and takes his compensation payment, he will still be able to apply for a new certificate immediately thereafter, and it will be for the issuing body to consider whether, in the situation as it sees it at the time, it should issue such a certificate. The issuing body will be able to ensure that no gaps are left in the coverage by British pilots which would be tilled by Continental pilots in what is essentially an international market. If the issuing body decides to issue a certificate, the pilot will be able to re-enter deep sea pilotage and will also be able to keep his compensation payment.
I can appreciate that district pilots might not welcome this proposal, but I think that it is preferable that a district pilot who holds a deep sea certificate should be given a choice in this way rather than being subject to the arbitrary removal of his deep sea pilotage certificate.
I hope that noble Lords will see this as an acceptable middle way between what are in this case the rather conflicting interests of the district and the deep sea pilots. However, I should be very willing to consider any alternative means of coping with the problem, if one could be found which did not include the

413
possibility of arbitrary revocation of existing deep sea pilotage certificates. I beg to move.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I wish to support these amendments because they are related to those that I introduced at Committee stage. The amendments are designed to protect those pilots who hold only a deep sea certificate and are not covered by any compensation scheme outlined in the Bill. At present, there is stiff enough competition in the deep sea area from abroad. It is a difficult market. If a deep sea pilot is unable to continue his profession due to overmanning, he is unable to claim compensation or remuneration for losing his livelihood. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments and I ask your Lordships to accept them.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised that the pilots are rather more than disappointed with this amendment. Their objections are on a number of grounds. First of all I find the Government's posture on this strangely inconsistent. Throughout the Bill they have said, "Let competition thrive even if it is at the expense of environmental danger and public safety". Then the noble Lord turns round and says, "Oh, but we can't have competition on deep sea pilotage, which is an international matter", and he has himself admitted that if we restrict the entry into the deep sea pilotage field it is likely to be filled by foreign nationals.
Furthermore, there is a question of past history. On 23rd May the Secretary of State announced a compensation scheme. He said then:
"Those proposals will include provision for a compensation scheme to be funded by the industry, for those licensed pilots whose services are not required by the harbour authorities once they have taken over responsibility of pilotage."
The pilots thought that that was a perfectly straight-forward and understandable thing, even if in fact there were a few riders to that agreement which were not mentioned at the time.
Now, quite late in the day, the Government come along and say, "We arc going to add a further qualification to that. If you want to get compensation you have to give up another qualification for which you have worked and on which you have spent money and which, in the ordinary way, should have a financial value." The Government, in a way, are offering the pilots what I think used to be known as Morton's Fork, or Hobson's Choice. They are saying, "Either you take compensation in respect of losing your job as a pilot, or you have to give up a totally unrelated thing, which is your certificate of deep sea pilotage." The two are totally unrelated.
At Committee stage, the Minister, as he agreed, said:
"I am therefore prepared to consider providing in the legislation that any pilots taking the proposed compensation and early retirement terms should surrender their deep sea pilotage certificates. This would not prevent them from subsequently applying for fresh deep sea pilotage certificates, but it would be for the authorised bodies then to consider whether they should be issued."[Official Report,12/1/87: col. 133.]
I think the noble Lord repeated that this evening. So the noble Lord appears to be saying that you give up your certificate one day and the next day you march in
414
and get another certificate from another body. If that is going to be automatic, what is the point? If it is not automatic, then surely it is objectionable. One would have thought that the simple thing was to say that these certificates would remain in force. If there is going to be discretion in the matter, who is going to exercise the discretion, and how is it going to be done?
Again, the Minister himself said, at col. 132:
"Since deep sea pilots operate in an open market in which there are a number of bodies issuing certificates, how would it be possible for any one body to know what number is required?"
And yet a moment ago the noble Lord was telling us that he thought there were going to be too many. He also said at Committee stage (col. 132) that one amendment would,
"put a deep sea pilot at risk of losing his status for reasons unconnected with his conduct or competence".
But is not that exactly what this amendment does? He also said, again in col. 132:
"Unlike district pilots, deep sea pilots operate in an international free market, and I think it would be quite wrong to put their status at risk in this way."
Yet that appears to be what the noble Lord is now doing.
There is the technical question that many of the deep sea pilotage certificates are only short haul: that is to say, they are restricted to certain regions, so they would not in fact support a full-time occupation. But, if we remove these pilots from the market, as I said earlier the likelihood is. it seems to me, that all we should be doing would be restricting British nationals' right to practise in this market, leaving it wide open to others to come into it. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to know that the pilots find this discriminatory and objectionable both in commercial terms and in terms of what undertakings the Minister has given in the past.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Strathcona has said. The giving up of the deep sea pilotage certificates is totally unnecessary. It would surprise me if many of the inshore pilots would wish to use their certificates, but they have the qualification. Why should they not use the certificates?
I agreed with my noble friend when he said that there was a danger of foreign nationals coming into the deep sea market in greater strength than is already the case. By allowing them to be available to pilot British ships, we should be increasing our imports without increasing our chance of exporting pilotage services. It is economically unsound for the nation as a whole, let alone for the pilots. They have worked hard for many years to obtain these certificates. They are being made redundant from one job and the Minister is saying in the same breath, "You are redundant from one job. You may not get a job in the same field".
Lord Greenway: My Lords, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, there are too many deep sea pilots around for the work available. The noble Lord. Lord Strathcona, asked how the present licensing authorities know how many deep sea pilots are available. Anybody who is in that business has a good idea of how many pilots are around. If I may speak

415
again for Trinity House, which is one of the licensing authorities, it does its best to try to dissuade any applicant from becoming a deep sea pilot for that very reason. I believe that it is not possible to refuse anyone a licence, even an EC national these days. But applicants are told to go to the companies who run deep sea pilotage, such as Hammonds at Dover and Hutchisons at Gravesend, and find out for themselves, then go back to Trinity House to see whether they still want to be a deep sea pilot. There have been cases where a pilot has been to see such people and then come back and said, "Thank you very much. We had no idea how difficult it was and there is also the fact that there is not so much work around".
Deep sea pilotage has traditionally been in the hands of the United Kingdom and Holland. But there are indications that the Germans and the French would like to get a piece of the action. On top of that there is an increasing number of what I term cowboy pilots who arrive on a ship in a Continental port and say to the captain "How would you like a nice cheap pilot?" Then a little underhand dealing goes on. The deep sea pilotage situation is difficult. We have heard a lot of talk during our negotiations on the Bill about fair and equitable treatment. What the Government are trying to achieve is fair and equitable for existing deep sea pilots, and I broadly support the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has put forward what is admittedly rather a compromise; but it is a compromise which I should have thought was well justified. I do not know the facts in detail but I have been given to understand that quite a considerable number of people who have district licences, particularly in the River Thames, also have a deep sea licence of which they make use very seldom.
If they get substantial compensation for giving up their district licence, it seems rather unfair that they can then go on competing in the deep sea market. If the compensation is right for a full-time district pilot, then, if they have not been doing more or less full-time district work, why do they qualify for full compensation? It seems to me that they are seeking to get it both ways, and I should have thought the proposal that the Minister has put forward was broadly a very fair one.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I took no part in the debate either in Committee or subsequently, but I have listened carefully to this debate. The noble Lord the Minister has obviously had conflicting interests to weigh and I find myself perfectly well persuaded that his scheme is not only fair but extremely adroit. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Greenway and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that this amendment is a fair and equitable compromise between conflicting interests.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the noble
416
Lords who have spoken in favour of this amendment? It is, as I think I said in my opening remarks, something of a compromise, but I believe that it achieves fair and equitable treatment. The present position, as I understand it, is that there are 45 full-time deep sea pilots. There are also something like 70 London district dual licence holders, and at the present time I understand that they do the equivalent of the work of approximately three full-time pilots during a year. What the deep sea pilots are obviously worried about is that somebody should collect his compensation and early pension, and then go into the deep sea pilot market and, obviously, undercut existing deep sea pilots with the benefit of the compensation terms and the early pension.
I do not believe that my noble friends Lord Strathcona and Lord Swinfen are correct in what they said about us letting in more foreign pilots, because, as I said in my opening remarks, the issuing body will be able to ensure that no gaps are left in the coverage by British pilots which would be filled by Continental pilots in what is essentially an international market. If the issuing body decides to issue a certificate, the pilot will be able to re-enter the deep sea pilotage and will be able to keep his compensation intact. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made.
It is a question of fairness. The Government have been accused by my noble friends of being unfair at various stages during this Bill, but I think in this case we are doing our very best to be fair to a small number of deep sea pilots.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above
"the relevant time" means

(a) in the case of a person who has no such arrangements as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection made with him, immediately before the appointed day; and

(b) in the case of a person who has such arrangements made with him which are terminated as there mentioned, immediately before the termination of those arrangements; and

"deep sea pilotage certificate" means a certificate granted by virtue of section 9(1)(j) of the Pilotage Act 1983 or under section 21 above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Further compensation scheme)

(1) The Secretary of State shall make a scheme or schemes ("further compensation schemes") under which payments are to be made for the purpose of compensating pilots for any loss of employment which may be suffered by them in consequence of the suspension or revocation of an authorisation under section 3(9)(b) or (c) of this Act.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a further compensation scheme shall require a competent harbour authority to make payments to those persons whose authorisations are suspended or revoked under section 3(9)(b) or (c) of this Act.

417

(3) A further compensation scheme may contain such provision as the Secretary of State may determine as to—

(a) the terms and conditions on which and the times at which payments are to be made; and

(b) the circumstances in which payments may be recovered from the persons to whom they are made.

(4)A further compensation scheme may include provision enabling a competent harbour authority to require the whole or part of any existing fund constituted for the purpose of making payments by way of compensation for loss of employment to pilots working in its harbour (whether vested in any person absolutely or as a trustee) to be applied towards any payments required to be made by the authority under the scheme.

(5) A further compensation scheme may extend to one or more areas and different provision may be made in respect of different areas.

(6) The Secretary of State may arrange for the Pilotage Commission to administer any further compensation scheme and any dispute arising as to the entitlement of any person to a payment under a further compensation scheme shall be determined by the Commission.

(7) After the abolition of the Pilotage Commission its functions under this section may be exercised by such other person or persons as the Secretary of State may appoint after consultation with such persons as he considers are representative of the persons in the United Kingdom principally interested in pilotage.

(8) A further compensation scheme may be varied by a subsequent such scheme.

(9) The Secretary of State may, by order made after the expiration of the period of ten years beginning on the appointed day, repeal any scheme made under this section and such order may contain such transitional powers as the Secretary of State considers are appropriate in consequence of such repeal.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 101 as well as moving Amendment No. 100. These amendments are almost similar to two amendments which I brought forward at Committee stage. They are regarded by the pilots as two of the most important amendments which your Lordships will have had before you and they are regarded as really vital for their future.
If my memory serves me correctly, at the end of a debate in which there was widespread support for the principle of these amendments, I decided that I would not force a Division at the Committee stage because the weather was so shocking on that day that the attendance was very low, and it would have been a farce to have a Division with a majority of one vote out of perhaps seven. That was the only reason that a Division was not asked for at Committee stage.
I must emphasise that the White Paper, in explaining the Bill in paragraph 41, finishes with an important statement:
"It is confident too that the legislation will provide a lasting basis for the future for marine pilotage, while at the same time providing equitable treatment to the present and future members of a distinguished profession".
I have emphasised the words "future members".
I shall not go into what I said at Committee stage in introducing the amendments. However, emphasis was laid both by the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister on being fair to those pilots who will continue. The amendments seek to carry out the pledges to be fair to those pilots who will continue. Generally speaking, we consider that those who decide to retire by the appointed day are being treated fairly. However, these two amendments are considered essential, and without them the continuing pilots who will have their licences removed by the Bill could be
418
dismissed at any time after the appointed day with no compensation and no enhanced retirement provisions.
That means that they will be treated inequitably in absolute terms. They will also be treated inequitably in comparison with those pilots retiring as a direct consequence of the Bill. The financial provisions are considered to be essential and the pilots have personally subscribed to those provisions by the direct use of moneys from their pension fund. Let it not be forgotten that the pilots' pension fund contributed £15 million towards the scheme for pilots who will be surrendering their work on the passage of the Bill.
As I say, similar amendments were proposed at Committee stage. The Minister said, at col. 168 of the Official Report, Public Bill Committee, on 15th January this year:
"It is right that special compensation arrangements should be provided for pilots who are self-employed and who will lose their employment as a direct result of the repeal of the legislation under which they obtained their licences. But the position of pilots who would be authorised under the new system will be different".
The Minister added that pilots who are authorised would,
"either have a contract of employment with the CHA or … an agreement with a CHA or … contract of employment with an agent. If a pilot's authorisation is revoked, he will of course have the protection of his contract of employment; or, if he is self-employed he will surely have made certain that safeguards are included in his agreement with the CHA or agent".
Therefore it is clear that everything depends on the agreement which the pilot has made. The Government, who are hoping to pass this legislation and who are saying that they will be fair to continuing pilots, seem to wash their hands of any responsibility.
The Minister said, at col. 170 of the Official Report, Public Bill Committee:
"1 do not think I can concede the principle that there should be a statutory compensation scheme for pilots who lose their authorisation after the initial period".
The Minister then said that provisions for the initial period should not necessarily go on for ever.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that in Amendment No. 100 an additional provision has been added which was not included in the amendment proposed at Committee stage. In subsection (9), in order to meet the criticism that that situation could not continue for ever, the amendment now before the House enables the Secretary of State, by order, to repeal the further compensation scheme after a period of 10 years.
The purpose of Amendment No. 101 is to secure as a permanent benefit under the Pilots' National Pension Fund rules the enhanced early retirement benefit for pilots declared to be surplus to requirements in the future; that is, after the appointed day. The Government have refused to date to dictate to a private sector pension fund, because that is what it would be, but indicated in the debate at the Report stage that pensions could be a matter referred to the arbitration panel, which we shall discuss later. That would refer to what might be inserted in an agreement with a CHA. It does not necessarily mean that there will be a guarantee that what we request in this amendment will take effect.
I am giving the Government rather an easy way out. Assuming that the Government feel that they cannot

419
possibly include in the legislation the continuance of this benefit, I would ask whether there could be sympathetic exhortation from the Minister to the future managers of the fund. Further, in the light of the inclusion of pensions as a matter for reference to the arbitration panel, I would urge the Minister to include a directive or recommendation on this benefit in the guidelines which are to be drawn up for the panel. The ideal solution is legislative provision, which is what Amendment No. 101 proposes. Failing this, the strongest possible influences should be brought to bear on whoever might be the trustees of the Pilots' National Pension Fund later on to provide for enhanced early retirement provision for pilots declared to be surplus after the appointed day.
We are saying that the scheme for pilots who surrender on the appointed day is reasonably satisfactory. But what we want to ensure is that the promises made for continuing pilots—and promises have been made by Ministers, by the Prime Minister, and in the memorandum—are carried out not only as regards the further compensation scheme but also as regards the pension scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I explained in Committee that I could see no case for a continuing statutory compensation scheme to be available for pilots once the period of reorganisation has passed. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has accepted this at least to the extent of providing, as his amendment seeks to do, a means for such schemes to be withdrawn after a period of 10 years.
The position of pilots who lose employment after the transitional period will, like the position of those in other trades and professions, be determined by the terms of their contracts of employment or other arrangements under which they are providing their services. The question of the terms on which employment is to be terminated if in future a pilot's services have to be dispensed with will be among the contract terms which can be dealt with under the arbitration procedure which we debated on Amendment No. 36 at the previous session. That procedure seems to me to offer a very fair deal to the pilots, and I certainly cannot accept that equity requires that the special compensation arrangements which we are making should be extended beyond the period of re-organisation, not even for the new 10-year period proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. That is a proposition I would find very hard to justify to people in other walks of life who are much more vulnerable to changes in trading conditions and other circumstances than the pilots will be under the CHAs' auspices.
I turn now to Amedment No. 101. The proposed new clause would enable a pilot who lost his authorisation under the new system to receive the same early retirement benefits from the Pilots' National Pension Fund as a pilot who retires on the introduction of the new regime. I commented when the same amendment was put down at Committee stage that I could hardly believe that the intention was that a pilot should be entitled to early retirement terms if his authorisation were merely suspended. But the more substantial point is that if this amendment were
420
to become law we should be laying down benefits to be provided by the PNPF, a private pension fund, without giving any consideration to the effects on the financial position of the fund and without giving those responsible for managing the fund any opportunity to make representations. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, accepted that point to an extent.
The justification for our laying down in this way what the benefits should be is so much the less because the proposal relates to a period after pilots' reorganisation will be complete. We intend that, when the harbour authorities take up their responsibilities for pilotage, the British Ports Association shall take up the employers' role in the management of the PNPF. That association has already undertaken, subject to detailed examination of the fund's financial position, not to reduce existing benefits including the period when the Government's compensation scheme will be in force—the early retirement terms. It will be a matter for those who will then be responsible for the PNPF to decide whether the early retirement terms should continue to be available for the pilots who are released after what we have called the shake-down period is over. Much will no doubt depend upon the financial position of the fund at the time, the likely cost of continuing such early retirement terms into the future, and the other options which the managers of the PNPF will be able to consider by that time. I can well understand that those who have contributed to the PNPF and who are not able to take advantage of the early retirement terms which will be available during the period immediately following the reorganisation will feel that the same terms should remain available after the end of that period. I am sure that an extension of the early retirement scheme is something which those responsible for the PNPF will consider very carefully. However, I do not believe that we should pre-empt decisions which will probably be taken by those responsible for the PNPF. I am sorry I have not been able to be more forthcoming but I hope at least to have given some encouragement to noble Lords in what I have said about these amendments.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who said that the ideal arrangement would be to write these things into the legislation, certainly as regards Amendment No. 100. However, the Minister has fallen back throughout upon his arbitration scheme and all of us I believe, wait with bated breath to see what is revealed in the guidelines which will direct the arbitration scheme. I understood the Minister to say that his understanding was that pensions would be something that one would expect to bring under the arbitration arrangements in the same way as the discussion upon basic earnings.
Since we are dealing with both these amendments, the question of Amendment No. 101 is obviously a little more difficult, in that the Government are really saying that we are not in a position to lay down the law in connection with the PNPF. I daresay that that is indeed the formal position. Some people think that the PNPF has already been raided to the tune of about 15 million pounds to provide the compensation scheme

421
for those leaving. I suppose the right answer is to hope that some similar arrangement or undertaking can be extracted from the PNPF before we have the Third Reading in this House. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, does not intend to press either of these amendments at this stage. He hopes that we can obtain some satisfactory undertakings in connection with the arbitration and the PNPF before we reach Third Reading.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that that might be difficult. What I spoke of with regard to the future of the PNPF was something extending into the future and not something which could be settled before the Third Reading. It depends on the financial position of the fund going into the future.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am disappointed, naturally, with the Minister's reply although, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, said, there is a certain amount of encouragement in his words which we might follow up on further amendments. There are amendments later on dealing with the management of the fund and the composition of the management of the fund. This should be kept in mind when we reach those amendments, as also should the remarks which have just been made.
There is a difference. We cannot compare what is suggested here with other trades and professions. The difference here is that the pilots have agreed to the scheme of reorganisation. They believe it is desirable: they believe it is necessary, and they support it. As I have said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, has reminded us, the pilots' own benefit fund has contributed to the Government scheme for the reorganisation to the tune of some 15 million for its own scheme of payments. Therefore that is different from other trades and professions.
When we come to look at the arbitration amendment—I think it is Amendment No. 109—it may be that one or two points can then be made. The Government must move for a further scheme in some direction or give encouragement to the CHAs to have a further compensation scheme. If they do not move at all on the future benefits under whatever pension fund there is then frankly they will not be carrying out their pledges to continuing pilots. They may be carrying out their pledges to pilots who decide to give up under the scheme, but it is the continuing pilots who are concerned and if we are not careful some pilots will have to make serious decisions on whether to continue or take advantage of the original benefit schemes. However, in view of what the Minister said and at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Funding of Part III expenses and liabili-ties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("section 22 or 23 above") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment ageed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Interpretation]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 17, at end insert—
("(2) In this Act references to a ship navigating or being navigated include references to its moving or being moved within a harbour for the purpose of changing from one mooring to another mooring or of being taken into or out of any dock.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 65. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 20, line 36, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 82. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("This Act") and insert ("The provisions of this Act, except section 25,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 25 already provides for the Pilotage Commission to make a start on its new responsibilities immediately on the enactment of this Bill. This amendment makes it possible for it to do so without the need for a separate order to bring the relevant provisions into force. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a sensible provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 20, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) The day appointed under subsection (2) above for the coming into force of Part I of this Act shall be not less than nine months after the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 82. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Schedule I [Transitional and saving provisions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 21, line 10, at end insert—
("(1) Where any dispute arises before the appointed day between a competent harbour authority and any person who wishes to be authorised under section 3 of this Act by the authority on or after that day as to what the terms of any provision in any contract of employment which is to be entered into between them should be and that dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation between them, the authority or any person or

423
organisation which represents holders of licences under section 12 of the Pilotage Act 1983 for a pilotage district in which the authority's harbour falls may refer the dispute to an arbitration panel appointed in accordance with section (Temporary procedure for resolving disputes as to terms of employment) (2) of this Act and the panel shall determine what the terms of that provision should be and the contracts of employment between the authority and authorised pilots to which their determination is to apply ("material contracts").
(2)Subsections (3), (4), (6) and (7) of that section shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as if references in those subsections to subsection (1) of that section included references to sub-paragraph (1) above and references in subsection (4) to relevant contracts included references to material contracts.
(3) If regulations under subsection (6) of that section as it applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above provide that the expenses of referrals and determinations under this paragraph are to be borne by the Pilotage Commission, section 3 of the Pilotage Act 1983 shall apply as if those expenses were expenses of the Commission in performing its functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 109, Amendment No. 110:
Sub-paragraph (1), line 2, leave out ("any person who wishes") and insert ("the representatives of the majority of persons wishing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 110 and 111A address essentially the same point though they are slightly different in detail. All that the amendments seek to do is to preclude the possibility of individual mischief-making and undue abuse of the arbitration procedure which the noble Lord introduced in the previous amendment and for which we are grateful. I need add no more. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these amendments are prior to the operation of the arbitration procedure before the appointed day. The first would mean that a dispute would have to be between a CHA and the majority of those seeking authorisation before arbitration could be invoked. This might rule out going to arbitration on a dispute concerning contract terms affecting only a few pilots and thus limit the application of the clause. Therefore I am not sure that it does not go a little further than we may wish.
However, the second amendment means that only persons or organisations representing a majority of the pilots could invoke the procedure. The pilots are concerned that otherwise it would be possible for rogue individuals representing only a few pilots to invoke this procedure. I find that amendment entirely acceptable and will certainly agree to it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. We were only trying to save him a little trouble in the long term. However, I am perfectly happy to withdraw Amendment No. 110 in view of what he has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 109, Amendment No. 111A:
Sub-paragraph (1), line 7, after ("represents") insert ("the majority of the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 111A, being confident that the Minister will accept it.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 109, as amended, be agreed to?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister said that he had spoken on this matter in connection with Amendment No. 36. That was a long time ago. I believe we said that where there were long groupings and it came to a particular item, it would be possible to say a few words on a specific amendment.
First, I should like to thank the Minister for writing to me about the point I raised concerning the position of the British Ports Association in relation to Associated British Ports. He pointed out to me that Associated British Ports is a party to the discussions that are taking place between the ports and the pilots about the guidelines, which all of us consider to be of the utmost importance.
Turning to this amendment, in subsection (1) there is the phrase:
"any person who wishes to be authorised"
that is someone who wishes to continue. Later on there is a reference to:
"after that day as to … the terms of any provision in any contract of employment".
I presume that means that the arbitration machinery can be used where there is an argument between the pilots of a particular area and the CHA in making a new agreement for continuing pilots, which I believe is a point that the Minister made in replying to other amendments.
Would that arrangement cover any possible discussion with a CHA and the pilots association locally for a further compensation scheme for continuing pilots? As regards those other issues over which from time to time there has been general pressure, such as the notion that there ought to be rights of appeal, are those points covered on any matter which is subject to arbitration after the appointed day?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, I spoke to this amendment when Amendment No. 36 was moved and I gave a broad outline of what we thought would and would not be covered by the arbitration procedure. At that time I think one meeting had taken place between the British Ports Association and the representatives of the pilots under the chairmanship of officials from my department. I can say that fruitful discussions have taken place.
The next discussions between those parties will take place tomorrow. I do not want to pre-empt what might and I hope will be decided tomorrow by going into more detail at the present time. I am confident that I shall be able to make a useful statement when we come to the Third Reading of this Bill. However I would

425
rather not pre-empt the discussions between the interested parties that are to take place tomorrow.
On Question, Amendment No. 109, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]
10 p. m
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 21, line 38, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the representatives of the members and other principal interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 114 which is a government amendment and with my Amendment No. 115. Amendment No. 113A relates to paragraph 3 in Schedule 1. I shall read the first four lines of the sub-paragraph:
"Any pilots' benefit fund established under paragraph (i) of section 15(1) of the Pilotage Act 1983 shall continue in existence notwithstanding the repeal of that section by this Act and the Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate".
There are then three points as to which he may make an order.
We suggest that after "the Secretary of State" and before the word "may" we insert:
"after consultation with the representatives of the members and other principal interest".
That seems to be common sense. My amendment No. 115 is an amendment to the Government amendment. I hope that it is all right for me to speak to that amendment, because the Government have not yet moved it. It will save me doing so later.
The pilots are concerned that the government amendment fails to specify the composition of the managers of the Pilots' National Pension Fund. That is similar to the previous absence of guidelines for the proposed Government dispute procedures which we understand are under discussion. The present management of the pension fund is provided for under pilotage by-laws which gave the necessary pre-establishment confidence to the members, with a statutory right of appeal or objection to their approval, which facilitated the establishment of the Pilots' National Pension Fund.
Formal discussions to which I have referred between the British Ports Association and future equal principals with the Pilots' National Pension Fund members and the present trustees of the pension fund, would indicate a readiness to accept a 50-50 basis for the composition of the future managers. That does not provide a sufficiently guaranteed formula for automatic acceptance of government Amendment No. 114.
Further, in the event of a 50-50 basis being accepted, the appointment of the chairman of the management with a casting vote will be critical. Ideally, that should be clarified beforehand. That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 115 to government Amendment No. 114. I am sure that it is fully appreciated that in the pension field in particular the right climate of confidence needs to be established before there is this radical reform of the pilotage organisation. This amendment will assist in doing that. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Amendment No. 114 will enable my right honourable friend the
426
Secretary of State not only to provide for the port authorities and the pilots to appoint the managers of the PNPF; it will enable him to determine what powers the ports and the pilots should retain to themselves to enable them to decide the fund's overall policy. I accept that the suggestion contained in Amendment No. 1 13A is a reasonable one, and that before making an order under this paragraph concerning future arrangements for the Pilots' National Pension Fund, the Secretary of State should consult representatives of the fund's members and of the harbour authorities.
I therefore accept the noble Lord's amendment in principle but, unfortunately, it went down only yesterday and I have not had a chance to clear it with the draftsman. I shall certainly bring forward something on the Third Reading, if I may.
Turning to Amendment No. 115, the provisions in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 established the general procedures for settling the arrangements for the future existence and organisation of the Pilots' National Pension Fund and any other existing pilots' benefit fund. It is inappropriate to try to deal in this legislation with one aspect of those future arrangements, as this amendment seeks to do. It is also premature since discussions between representatives of the pilots and of the harbour authorities need to take place before any of the parties can reach any firm conclusions about what those future arrangements should be.
I suggest that those are the type of points which the Secretary of State will need to consult about under the noble Lord's previous amendment, which I have accepted in principle, before an order is made. Since such orders will be subject to negative resolution procedure, there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to express views on these matters at the appropriate stage. I hope therefore that with my acceptance in principle of the noble Lord's first amendment he will not feel the need to press his last one.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 113A in principle and I look forward to the amendment at the next stage. In the light of what the Minister has said on the Government's own Amendment No. 114 and my amendment to that, I shall look very carefully at what the Minister has said. It sounds very reasonable, if I might put it that way. As he has said that he has not had a chance to look carefully at Amendment No. 113A, although he accepts it in principle, similarly I have not had an opportunity to look thoroughly at Amendment No. 114. I think we all accept the position, and on the basis of the noble Lord's remarks I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 113A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 21, line 42, leave out from ("(b)") to ("and") in line 43 and insert ("the appointment of the managers of any such fund and any powers to be exerciseable as respects the management of the fund by the persons who are to appoint those managers;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 115, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 114 agreed to.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

  DRAIZE EYE TEST: GUIDELINES
  DRAIZE EYE TEST: GUIDELINES
  RAPE SENTENCES
  RAPE SENTENCES
  UN NUCLEAR TEST BAN RESOLUTIONS
  UN NUCLEAR TEST BAN RESOLUTIONS
  "KINETIC KILL VEHICLES"
  "KINETIC KILL VEHICLES"
  COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
  COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
  STOCK EXCHANGE: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF FIRMS
  STOCK EXCHANGE: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF FIRMS
  VIDEO PIRACY IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS: CONSULTATIONS
  VIDEO PIRACY IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS: CONSULTATIONS
  SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS BOARD: PROPOSED RULES
  SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS BOARD: PROPOSED RULES
  CRIMINAL CASES, GLASGOW: INTERVAL BETWEEN PLEADING AND TRIAL DIET
  CRIMINAL CASES, GLASGOW: INTERVAL BETWEEN PLEADING AND TRIAL DIET
  SEALS: DAFS-FUNDED RESEARCH
  SEALS: DAFS-FUNDED RESEARCH
  DINOSEB
  DINOSEB
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES
  PESTICIDES: USE IN WEST GERMANY
  PESTICIDES: USE IN WEST GERMANY
  SHEEPDOGS, ETC.: DOSAGE AGAINST PARASITIC INFECTION
  SHEEPDOGS, ETC.: DOSAGE AGAINST PARASITIC INFECTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND RAIL NETWORK: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
  NORTHERN IRELAND RAIL NETWORK: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS